Criminal Misc. No.M-43047 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No.M-43047 of 2007 Date of Decision:27.1.2009 Harpal Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. M.L. Saggar, Senior Advocate with Mr. G.P. Vashist, Advocate for respondents No.5 and 6. Mr. Pawan Girdhar, Advocate for respondent No.7. Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for respondents No.8 and 9. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Harpal Singh under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuing directions to respondents No.1 to 3 to register a case/ FIR against respondents No.4 to 9 under Sections 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120-B of IPC in pursuance to the complaints/ representations submitted to respondents No.2 and 3 disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the representation made by the petitioner to respondents No.2 and 3 against the Criminal Misc. No.M-43047 of 2007 -2- accused/ respondents find corroboration from the report given by Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh and other documentary evidence. Despite that the respondents are not looking into the grievance of the petitioner, who is running from the pillar to post in order to get justice. All the efforts made by him could not yield any fruitful result. Instead of taking any action against accused persons, the petitioner is being threatened to be implicated in some more false cases, as he has already been implicated in one case registered at the instance of Taranjit Singh respondent No.7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. The application was moved by the petitioner against Jeet Singh son of Santokh Singh resident of 45/1, Model Gram, Ludhiana and Harjinder Singh Khurana alias Raju son of Santokh Singh resident of the said address stating that a plot measuring 1000 square yards situated at plot No.1-C Dairy Complex, Tajpur Road, Ludhiana was allotted in the name of Jeet Singh. In the month of December, 1993, an oral agreement for sale was entered with the applicant for a total sale consideration of Rs.9 lacs. At that time, Jeet Singh received an earnest money of Rs.5 lacs from the applicant. The possession of the plot was delivered to the applicant. Jeet Singh continued making the payment of instalments to the Improvement Trust upto 1987. The enhanced value of Rs.1,37,800/- of the plot was deposited by the applicant on 29.5.2001. Jeet Singh also received Rs.2,50,000/- from the applicant on 31.5.2001 against receipt duly signed by him. The balance amount of Rs.12,200 was also deposited by the applicant on 13.6.2001. Jeet Singh executed an affidavit for transfer of the land in favour of Harpal Criminal Misc. No.M-43047 of 2007 -3- Singh. Similarly, the applicant also executed an affidavit and the same was submitted vide diary No.4685 dated 14.6.2001 with the Ludhiana Improvement Trust. Thereafter, the applicant was using the said plot as owner and got installed an electric connection in his name. He also obtained the licence of Dairy Farming in the name of his wife Amarjit Kaur, who was associated by Isher Singh and Raj Kaur. Isher Singh and Jodh Singh brothers inter-se are running joint business. After Isher Singh's death, Amarjit Kaur, Raj Kaur and Amandeep Singh are his legal heirs. Jeet Singh and Harjinder Singh are the real brothers who are married with the two real sisters of Taranjit Singh son of Jodh Singh. After the death of Isher Singh, no property was given to Amarjit Kaur, due to which, the wife of the applicant also objected several times. Amarjit Kaur was murdered. An FIR No.163 of 2003 under Section 302 IPC was registered at Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana on the basis of the statement of the applicant, Harpal Singh. The opposite party also named Harpal Singh as an accused. During investigation, he was found innocent. But thereafter, he was arrested and sent to jail. The case is pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. After implicating the applicant in the murder case, the opposite party Jeet Singh, Harjinder Singh and other persons fabricated some documents for transferring the said plot No.1-C, Dairy Complex, Tajpur Road, Ludhiana in their names and with criminal intention got misplaced the transfer application and affidavit earlier given in favour of Harpal Singh to the Improvement Trust. Jeet Singh got executed and registered a conveyance deed on 31.3.2005 in his favour. By doing so, these persons have cheated the applicant, who requests for the registration Criminal Misc. No.M-43047 of 2007 -4- of a criminal case. As per the report Annexure R.1/T submitted by the Inspector, In-charge E.O. Wing, Ludhiana on 23.7.2007, the applicant is in possession of the aforesaid plot, since 1993 though conveyance deed dated 31.3.2005 has been registered in favour of Jeet Singh son of Santokh Singh. It was also revealed during investigation that the application and affidavit given by Jeet Singh for the transfer of the plot were also found misplaced from the Improvement Trust file. The investigation is being conducted by the officials of the Improvement Trust in this regard. Harpal Singh has also filed a civil suit against Jeet Singh in the Court. The aforesaid Wing before reaching at any conclusion sought the legal opinion of District Attorney (Legal), who gave the opinion vide Annexure R.2 in the following terms: “Again put up for final opinion. The Inquiry Officer has concluded that Harpal Singh is in possession of the disputed plot. But he took the possession of the plot not as buyer, but as the lessee Jeet Singh has never sold the plot to Harpal Singh. It is also concluded by the Inquiry Officer that as both the parties are alleging that opposite party has prepared and submitted the forged documents with the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, so it is not clear who prepared and submitted the transfer documents and who got these documents misplaced from the record. In view of the above findings of the Inquiry Officer, at this stage no cognizable offence is made out. A civil suit is pending in the Civil Court. If the Civil Court gives a finding Criminal Misc. No.M-43047 of 2007 -5- that Jeet Singh etc. have forged the documents then a case can be registered. Till then the matter may be kept pending. Submitted, please.” In re: Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 392, the Apex Court has observed as under:- “In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an F.I.R and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. It is well-settled that when a power is given to an authority to do something it includes such incidental or implied powers which would ensure the proper doing of that thing. In other words, when any power is expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedly included in the grant, even without special mention, every power and every control the denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective. Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary to its execution. In view of the abovementioned legal position, we are of the Criminal Misc. No.M-43047 of 2007 -6- view that although Section 156(3) is very briefly worded, there is an implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to order registration of a criminal offence and/or to direct the officer in charge of the concerned police station to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the same. Even though these powers have not been expressly mentioned in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., we are of the opinion that they are implied in the above provision. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose, he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the Magistrate or by filling a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.” Criminal Misc. No.M-43047 of 2007 -7- Learned counsel for the petitioner is agreed to file a complaint in the Court of the learned Illaqa Magistrate alongwith an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Such an application, if moved, shall be considered. An appropriate order as warranted by law shall be passed expeditiously. This petition is disposed of accordingly. January 27, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes