Letters Patent Appeal No.959 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.959 of 2009 Date of decision: 25.9.2009 *** Santosh Kumar Gupta ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr.Karan Nehra, Advocate for the appellant. S.D.ANAND, J. The instant Letters Patent Appeal at the hands of the appellant- petitioner is directed against the impugned order dated 13.8.2009 vide which the learned Single Judge ordered its dismissal in limine by observing that if the appellant-petitioner has a subsisting grievance, he may file a complaint before the competent Court of law. Qua the plea made by the petitioner for issuance of a direction for initiation of disciplinary action against the police officials concerned, the learned Single Judge noticed that the representation in that behalf had already been sent by the petitioner to the authorities concerned and it will be for authorities to take requisite action, as per law, if there be any need for it. The solitary grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner Letters Patent Appeal No.959 of 2009 -2- **** is that the police authorities at the higher level having already declined to redress his grievance, there is no way he can further pursue it before those authorities. It is also his grievance that it may not be legally feasible for the appellant to file a complaint before the competent Court of law against the concerned police officials who had committed dereliction in the discharge of their duties enjoined upon them as police officials/public servants to investigate the offence notified them in FIR fairly and in a non partisan way. It is apparent from the material obtaining on the Letters Patent Appeal record that, as a consequence of First Information Report lodged by the petitioner, certain people are being prosecuted in a Court of law. The petitioner has a grievance that some accused had been left out of the array of the accused on the basis of dishonest investigation. The grievance, thus, pertains to the conducting of partisan manner of investigation. There also is an allegation that an enquiry report furnished by the respondent no.6 (Mr. G.S.Bedi, D.S.P. ( R), Sangrur, District Sangrur) is based upon on 'extraneous consideration'. The police had sent up a report for cancellation on an averment that the parties had come to terms. In that context, it is also the averment in the grounds of appeal that the respondent-police officials had ante-dated a letter “informing that there was compromise between the petitioner and the private respondents”. There also is an averment in the grounds of appeal that the appellant-petitioner had “also filed a complaint case against the private respondents before the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, seeking directions to the Police official to further investigate the matter.” Learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to dispute Letters Patent Appeal No.959 of 2009 -3- **** the legal proposition that there is a remedy available to him before the learned Trial Court itself to apply for re-enquiry and also for the summoning of the left out accused. It is, however, pointed out that there is no way he can file a complaint against the police official in the matter of biased investigation conducted by them for extraneous consideration. Infact, on the own showing of the appellant, he has already filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur “seeking a direction to the police official to further investigate the matter.”. The petitioner is not on a firmer footing when he apprehends any impediment in the matter of proceeding against the police official complained-against qua their acts of dereliction. The averment that the police official complained-against acted on extraneous consideration is a matter cognizable by the Judicial courts and the same applies to further allegation that the concerned police official had ante-dated a letter in support of the factually incorrect averment that there had been a compromise between the parties (i.e. appellant-petitioner and party opposite to him). Whether the averment would be acceptable at law after being tested on the touchstone of legal scrutiny is a matter which would be adjudicated upon by the concerned Court. It is not for us to, at all, comment upon the correctness/validity or otherwise of the averments in the relevant behalf. We would just stop by observing that the appellant-petitioner cannot have a valid grievance that no legal recourse is available to him in the matter of above indicated allegations against the police officials concerned. Qua their having been actuated by extraneous consideration and for having allegedly ante-dated the letter to raise a plea for compromise. Letters Patent Appeal No.959 of 2009 -4- **** It is the own averment by the applicant-petitioner that the police had sent up a report for cancellation of the FIR. If that were so, he must have been notified of the same and he further must have had an opportunity to file a protest petition. The appellant-complainant has fallen short by averring what exact orders came to be passed by the learned Illaqa Magistrate on the police request for cancellation. If the appellant-petitioner had filed a protest petition, appropriate orders for cognizance and treating it as a private complaint would have been granted by the learned Illaqa Magistrate. In the absence of any communication about the nature of proceedings taken by the learned Illaqa Magistrate, we would not further dilate on that aspect. We find no infirmity whatsoever in the approach of the learned Single Judge. Dismissed. (S.D.ANAND) JUDGE September 25, 2009 (J.S.KHEHAR) Pka JUDGE