In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc.-M No.3179 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:3.2.2009 Harjeet Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Sarbjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of directions to the respondents to conduct an impartial/independent inquiry in case FIR No.148 dated 18.7.2008 registered at Police Station, Jandiala, District Amritsar for the offences under Sections 326, 324, 323, 506, 341, 148 and 149 IPC as also the cross- version registered vide Report No.30 dated 19.7.2008 for the offences under Sections 326, 325, 323, 148 and 149 IPC. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the DSP, Sub Division, Majitha vide his report dated 25.10.2008 (Annexure- P.3) has observed that injury No.1 which is caused on the person of Mandeep Singh, who is from the side of the petitioner was not caused at the time of fight. However, the Police had sought a report on 14.8.2008 (Annexure-P.4) to clarify as to whether the said injury No.1 on the person of Mandeep Singh can be caused itself or by some other person. In this regard Dr. Gurpal Singh Randhawa on 21.8.2008 had opined that it was possible that Mandeep Singh would use left hand in order to save his eye and in that Cr. Misc.-M No.3179/2009 [2] situation the little finger of his hand would come forward and it is possible that in order to save himself from injury No.2, the injury No.1 can be caused. Despite the said opinion of the doctor, it is submitted that the DSP has observed that said injury could not be caused. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter it may be noticed that the field of investigation is the domain of the Police whose powers in that field are unfettered and subject only to certain limitations. In State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 604 it was observed as follows:- “The investigation of a cognizable offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code and the Courts are not justified in obliterating the track of investigation when the investigating agencies are well within their legal bounds as aforementioned. Indeed, a noticeable feature of the scheme under Chapter XIV of the Code is that a Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of the police investigation but he is not authorized to interfere with the actual investigation or to direct the police how that investigation is to be conducted. But if a police officer transgresses the circumscribed limits and improperly and illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any statutory provision causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty and also property of a citizen, then the Court on being Cr. Misc.-M No.3179/2009 [3] approached by the person aggrieved for the redressal of any grievance has to consider the nature and extent of the breach and pass appropriate orders as may be called for without leaving the citizens to the mercy of police echelons since human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution. It needs no emphasis that no one can demand absolute immunity even if he is wrong and claim unquestionable right and unlimited powers exercisable up to unfathomable cosmos. Any recognition of such power will be tantamount to recognition of `Divine Power' which no authority on earth can enjoy”. A perusal of the above shows that the Court though is not normally to interfere in the investigating process so long as the investigation with respect to cognizable offence is carried out in compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter-XII of the Code. However, the Illaqa Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages even though he is not authorized to interfere in the actual investigation but if a Police Officer transgresses the circumscribed limits and improperly and illegally exercises his investigatory powers the Court on being approached by the aggrieved person for the redress of his grievance has to consider the nature and extent of the breach and pass appropriate orders as may be called for. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (1) RCR (Cr.) 392 (SC) it has been observed that the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and can also direct proper investigation to be made in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C monitor the investigation to ensure proper investigation. Cr. Misc.-M No.3179/2009 [4] In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and expedient that the petitioner with respect to his grievance approaches the Magistrate concerned in the first instance. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of so as to enable the petitioner in the first instance to file an application before the Illaqa Magistrate, if so advised. February 3, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*