Crl. Misc. No. M- 36177 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 36177 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: March 17, 2010 Ms. Naveen Bhandari ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. CM Munjal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. AS Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. GURDEV SINGH, J. The petitioner, Naveen Bhandari, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, for issuance of a direction to the respondents to take action against the accused persons, who have forcibly occupied the residential house of her father, after breaking its lock and looted the entire house-hold items lying therein. According to the petitioner, her father-Darshan Lal Bhandari, was working as Superintendent in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Moga, who had purchased one house measuring 900 square feet from Reet Mohinder Singh for a total consideration of Rs. 2.34 lakhs, vide registered sale deed dated 17.2.2004. After the sale deed, they got possession of that house, which was renovated, and they started living therein peacefully and Crl. Misc. No. M- 36177 of 2009 2 happily. She has got one brother, named, Rohit Bhandari, who got married with Neesha George without the consent of his parents and they got obtained a direction from this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 10152 M of 2008 for the protection of their life and liberty. A dispute arose between the husband and wife after one year of their marriage and they started litigating with each other. On that account Darshan Lal became upset and started living out of Moga off and on for the settlement of the cases as well as for looking after his job. About one month back, she and her parents were out of the town and the house was locked with all household goods lying therein. When they came back on 5.11.2009 they found that the lock of the house had been broken and some goonda elements were staying therein, who had forcibly occupied that house. When they made inquiries from them, they threatened them with dire consequences and asked them to go away from that place. Her parents immediately approached the SHO-respondent No.4 and gave information of the incident to him but no action was taken. Thereafter, a written complaint was sent to the SSP, Moga-respondent No.3 with copies to respondents No. 1 and 2 regarding the said incident. At no point of time, Darshan Lal alienated this house in favour of any one and he is still the owner thereof. Their right to property has been violated by anti- social elements who have taken the law in their hands. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. A detailed reply was submitted by Balwinder Singh, DSP (City), Moga, on behalf of respondent No.1. He contended therein that no written or oral complaint was ever made by the petitioner regarding the alleged incident. After receipt of the notice of this petition, Bikkar Singh ASI went to the house in dispute, where one Surinder Kumar was found present, who gave the Crl. Misc. No. M- 36177 of 2009 3 information that Darshan Lal had rented the house in dispute to him at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month, after receiving Rs. 5 lakhs as security and Rs. 3,000/- as advance rent, and had executed a rent agreement in his favour. The statements of Surinder Kumar and Kuldeep Kumar MC recorded by that ASI and the agreement regarding rent were filed alongwith the reply. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. The complaint mentioned in the petition, which, according to the petitioner, was sent to the SSP with copies to the State of Punjab and the DGP, Punjab, has been annexed with this petition as Annexure P/2. That complaint is purported to have been sent to the SSP, through fax and registered post. However, the respondents have come out with the plea that no such complaint was received by them. The same is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be decided in this petition. Even if such a complaint was sent to the SSP and he failed to take notice of the same, as required under Section 154 (3) of the Code, the petitioner was not without any remedy. She could have filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code or could have made a complaint under Section 156 (3) of the Code to the Magistrate. When such an alternative efficacious remedy was available to the petitioner, she cannot invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, as laid down in Sakiri Vasu versus State of U.P. And others 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 392. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. March 17, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE