Criminal Misc. No. 21532-M OF 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 21532-M OF 2010 Date of decision:1st February, 2011 Satpal .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Present: None for the petitioner. Ms. Gurveen H.Singh, Addl. A.G.,Punjab for the respondent-State. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Nirmaljit Kaur, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of appropriate order of directions, directing the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to take appropriate action on the complaint dated 1.7.2010, submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law. Reply has been filed. As per reply, the complaint submitted by the petitioner to the answering respondent No. 2 was entrusted to Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-II, Ludhiana for a fact Criminal Misc. No. 21532-M OF 2010 2 finding enquiry. A detailed fact finding enquiry was conducted by Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-II, Ludhiana and the petitioner w as also personally heard and the allegations mentioned in his complaint against his daughter-in-law Gurpreet Kaur were found to be false and were not substantiated during the enquiry. On the basis of the enquiry report(Annexure R-1) of Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-II, Ludhiana the complaint of the petitioner was recommended to be filed. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P and others reported as 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 392, held as under:- “27. As we have already been 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, 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 Criminal Misc. No. 21532-M OF 2010 3 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 filing 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. 28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere.” In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail of alternative remedy, if so advised and in accordance with law. [NIRMALJIT KAUR] JUDGE 1st February, 2011 Shivani Kaushik