Crl. Misc. No.M-37359 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-37359 of 2010 Date of decision: 20.12.2010 Palwinder Singh and others .. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .. Respondents Present:- Mr.A.S.Barnala, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short-Cr.P.C.) for directing Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga (respondent No.1) to register a case under the relevant sections and also that the life and liberty of the petitioners be protected from respondents No.2 and 3. Respondent No.2 is the wife of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3, it is alleged, is her paramour. According to petitioner No.1, his marriage was solemnized with Jaswinder Kaur (respondent No.2) on 02.11.2005. From the said marriage, they had three children. One child has been adopted by their close relative, while the remaining children namely Harjot Singh and Prabhjot Singh (petitioners No.2 and 3) are staying with petitioner No.1 and his aged parents. After the marriage, petitioner No.1 in order to improve his economic status went to Malaysia where he worked hard for a period of 5-6 years. He recently came back to India and then he came to know that his wife (respondent No.2) was having illicit relations with respondent No.3. He also came to know about the mobile phone which was used by his wife (respondent No.2) for contacting respondent No.3. Keeping in mind the future of his children, who are growing up, petitioner No.1 did not take any stringent action against his wife (respondent No.2) and respondent No.3- Crl. Misc. No.M-37359 of 2010 ::2:: her paramour but he asked his wife to cut off all ties with respondent No.3. He also assured her that in case she kept her word he would forget and forgive any sin committed by her. It is submitted that initially Jaswinder Kaur (respondent No.2) assured the petitioner No.1 that she would mend her ways but petitioner No.1 was surprised and thunder-struck when on 02.12.2009, he was informed at Malaysia by his mother that his wife (respondent No.2) was missing from the house and had run away with respondent No.3. Besides, she had also taken along with her Rs.25 lacs worth gold and Rs.50,000/- in cash. The wife of petitioner No.1 had not only left him but also her two small children (petitioners No.2 and 3), his old blind father and old aged mother. Besides, she had also stolen the belongings and hard- earned money of petitioner No.1 in connivance with respondent No.3. The petitioner No.1 asked his family members to check up the account of his wife (respondent No.2) which was her personal account. On checking, it was found that not only had the goods been taken but respondent No.2 had also taken an additional sum of Rs.3 lacs which petitioner No.1 had earned by working hard at Malaysia. The petitioner No.1 asked his mother to move an application about his wife (respondent No.2) who had run away with respondent No.3. The mother of petitioner No.1 submitted a representation dated 19.01.2010 (Annexure P-3) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga. On the basis of the said application, a preliminary enquiry was conducted but the respondents No.2 and 3 were found to have absconded. Thereafter, the parents of petitioner No.1 started receiving threats on telephone and in person. Accordingly, the mother of petitioner No.1 gave a representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga, with regard to the threats that had been given. In the meantime, the petitioner No.1 finished his contract at Malaysia Crl. Misc. No.M-37359 of 2010 ::3:: and due to the early departure, he had also to part with his hard-earned amount of Rs.1.5 lacs. He came back to India to take care of his small children (petitioners No.2 and 3) and his blind father; besides, his old aged mother. However, it is submitted that the Police has not registered any FIR against his wife. In fact, Parminder Kaur, wife of Jaswinder Singh (respondent No.3) has got registered FIR No.353 at Police Station City Patiala for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC against her husband-Jaswinder Singh (respondent No.3). After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that primary grievance of the petitioner is that there has been inaction on the part of the police in not registering a FIR against the respondents No.2 and 3 on the allegations that respondent No.2 is having illicit relations with respondent No.3; besides, she had taken away the articles, belongings and cash of petitioner No.1. Further, grievance is that the police protection is liable to be granted to petitioners on account of threats held out by the respondents No.2 and 3. It may be noticed that as regards the registration of FIR for the offences as have been alleged, that it is well-known that in case there is inaction on the part of the police in not registering a FIR, an aggrieved person has his remedies in accordance with law and this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is normally not to issue directions for registration of a FIR. In Aleque Padamsee and others v. Union of India and others, (2007) 6 SCC 171 (SC), it was observed that the correct position in law is that the Police officials are to register a FIR whenever the facts brought to their notice show that a cognizable offence has been made out. In case the Police officials fail to do so, the modalities to be adopted are set out in Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. Therefore, if a person is aggrieved by the inaction of the Police officials in not registering Crl. Misc. No.M-37359 of 2010 ::4:: the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. are to be adopted and followed. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP and others, 2008 (1) RCR (Crl.) 392 (SC) it was observed by the Supreme Court that if a person has a grievance that the Police Station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Supreintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not lead to any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is not registered or even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file such application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is filed before the Magistrate, 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. However, a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for directing the registration of a FIR is to be done only in some rare and some exceptional cases. In the present case, the petitioner has his remedy of approaching the Magistrate in case there is any inaction on the part of the Police in not registering the FIR. The present is not a case which would warrant the issuance of directions by this Court for registration of a FIR. As regards the prayer of the petitioners seeking protection, the petitioners may seek their remedy in terms of Section 107 Cr.P.C. before the Court of learned Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned. In the circumstances, the petitioners if so advised, may avail their other remedies as available to them in accordance with law. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE December 20, 2010 sukhpreet