Crl. Misc. No. 9164-M of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH * * * * * Crl. Misc. No. 9164-M of 2006 Date of decision : February 01, 2008 * * * * * Surinder Pal ............Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...........Respondents * * * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER * * * * * Present: Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Khatkar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Me. P.K Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent no.6. * * * * * MAHESH GROVER, J This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which the petitioner has sought the issuance of appropriate directions to respondents no. 1 to 5 to register an FIR under the provisions of Section 420/406/506/323/443/445/447/448 IPC and also for issuance of any other appropriate direction that this Court may deem fit, in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner is said to have purchased one apartment Crl. Misc. No. 9164-M of 2006 2 No.B-1/201, which was sold to him by respondent no.6, who is the Director of Ambience Infrastructure Private Limited. The petitioner is said to have paid a total consideration of Rs.1,46,98,000/-. It is then contended that the petitioner was put into possession of the said flat/apartment on 26.11.2005 and a possession letter dated 22.11.2005 was issued which is attached along with as Annexure P-2 to the present petition. Pursuant to the handing over of the possession, the petitioner is stated to have shifted his residence somewhere between 7.1.2006 to 15.1.2006 and on 15.1.2006 itself, he received his first energy bill. From this, the petitioner wanted to demonstrate the factum of his entering into possession and occupying the said apartment. It is then alleged by the petitioner that on 21.1.2006, the petitioner along with his family had gone out for some work and when they returned they noticed security guards posted in the Complex B- 1, where the apartment was situated and these guards did not allow the petitioner to enter the apartment. The petitioner was manhandled and the guards told him that they were acting at the behest of respondent no.6. The petitioner then tried to contact respondent no.6, but to no avail. On 23.1.2006, he is said to have received communication from respondent no.6 to the effect that amount deposited by the petitioner was being refunded to him since he had not finalized the agreement, which fact according to the petitioner was incorrect as he had already taken the possession after Crl. Misc. No. 9164-M of 2006 3 completing the necessary formalities, and the agreement, according to him, already stood concluded, which is on record as Annexure P- 1. The petitioner, thereafter, was said to have approached the local police i.e the Station House Officer-respondent no.5 and gave a written complaint which is on record as Annexure P-6, but since no action had been taken on this, the petitioner made another representation which has been attached as Annexure P-8 to the present petition. The present petition has now been filed with a pryer which has been delineated above. The respondents put in appearance pursuant to the notice of motion which was issued to them and in the reply submitted by respondent no.6, it was pointed out that the petitioner has already filed a civil suit seeking a decree for possession of the suit property, which is apartment No. B-1/201 located in Complex B-1 on Second Floor of the building No.B-1, Ambience Island, N.H.8, Gurgaon and has also prayed for a decree in monetary terms for unauthorized use and occupation of the property from 21.1.2006 to 20.7.2006 @ Rs. 2 Lacs per month. It was further contended that the apartment in question was valued at between Rs.2 Crores and Rs.3 Crores which price had been reflected in the brochure which the respondent no.6 had issued for the sale of the said apartments. The agreement between the petitioner and respondent no.6 for sale of the said apartment had not fructified and in the absence of any contract, the petitioner cannot claim any right on the said apartment. Besides the amount which was deposited by the petitioner was far short of the Crl. Misc. No. 9164-M of 2006 4 value of the apartment and the same had been refunded to him. The petitioner had merely deposited approximately half of the price of the flat, which cannot be construed to be a complete satisfaction of the price of the said apartment, and therefore, the question of putting him into possession did not arise at all. The rest of the averments made by the petitioner regarding the forcible dispossession were denied. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, respondents no.5 ought to have registered an FIR against respondent no.6 as it is a clear case where the petitioner has been duped of a huge sum of Rs.1,46,98,000/- and prima facie an offence under Section 156 is straightway attracted. Reliance was placed on Parkash Singh Badal and another Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007(1)RCR (Crl.) SC, 1 and Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and others, 2006(2) SCC, 677, wherein the Apex Court has observed as follows: “We are not convinced by this submission because the sole grievance of the appellant is that no case has been registered in terms of the mandatory provisions of Section 154(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Genuineness or otherwise of the information can only be considered after registration of the case. Genuineness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. Crl. Misc. No. 9164-M of 2006 5 In case, an officer in charge of a police station refuses to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and to register a case on the information of a cognizable offence reported and thereby violates the statutory duty cast upon him, the person aggrieved by such refusal can sent the substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned who if satisfied that the information forwarded to him discloses a cognizable offence, should either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him in the manner provided by sub-Section (3) of Section 154 of the Code.” On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.6 contended that since there was a civil dispute between the parties where the factum of the transaction, if at all having concluded between the petitioner and respondent no.6, is yet to be decided before the Civil Court, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled by the petitioner against respondent no.6 had any merit. Besides, it was contended that in Sakiri Vasu V. State of U.P and others, 2008 (1) RCR (Cr.) 392, it has been held by the Apex Court that under Section 482, directions cannot be issued for the registration of the FIR and an aggrieved person has the appropriate remedy to go before the Magistrate under the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Crl. Misc. No. 9164-M of 2006 6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record. The power of the High Court under Section 482 cannot be belittled. The High Court in the exercise of such a power can give any direction to secure the ends of justice. There can be no straight jacket prescription which has the effect of diluting such a power to say that a direction for the registration of a case cannot be issued But, at the same time, High Court has to exercise this power with great circumspection so as not to give,an impression of rampant use of such a power when the circumstances do not warrant to resorting to such a power. Closely examining the facts of the case, it appears that there is indeed some simmering dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.6 which is seeped in a controversy where civil transaction for sale and purchase of an apartment has gone wrong for reasons which are yet to be established by the Civil Court where the parties are in conflict with each other. Accordingly, I do not deem it to be a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised to issue a direction for the purposes of registration of an FIR. The Apex Court has also observed in Sakiri Vasu V. State of U.P and others, 2008 (1) RCR (Cr.) 392 that under the provisions of Section 156, the Magistrate has a wide power to direct the police to register FIR and the Magistrate can also monitor the investigation. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court, in the aforesaid case,and the facts of the case the petitioner if so advised, may have recourse to his alternative remedy Crl. Misc. No. 9164-M of 2006 7 by approaching the Magistrate concerned under the requisite provisions of law in consonance with the observations made in Sakiri Vasu V. State of U.P and others, 2008 (1) RCR (Cr.) 392. The present petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. February 01, 2008 ( MAHESH GROVER ) ritu JUDGE