Criminal Misc. -M No. 6743 of 2010 (1) IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. -M No. 6743 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 29.11.2011 Dr. Sumeet Sofat .. Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. R. S. Ghuman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. T. P. S. Teji, Advocate for Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate, for respondent nos. 6 to 8. Rajesh Bindal, J. Prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a direction to the State as well as the Director General of Police, Punjab, to take action against the official respondents, namely the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana and the concerned Station House Officer, for non-supply of x-ray films and x-ray reports pertaining to the injuries suffered by the petitioner in an incident which took place on 23.5.2009. His further grouse is that the petitioner was not even permitted to take copies thereof. For the incident which allegedly took place on 23.5.2009, the petitioner had filed a complaint with the SHO, Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana on 24.5.2009, which was duly received. FIR for the alleged incident was not registered. Thereafter, the petitioner even approached the Director General of Police, Punjab, Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana for registration of a case. The copies of the x-ray films and x-ray reports were sought as the petitioner wanted to file a complaint in the court. It is alleged that the petitioner was admitted in CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. Criminal Misc. -M No. 6743 of 2010 (2) It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not file any complaint with the court pertaining to the incident and further it is not even alleged by him in his complaint to the Director General of Police, Punjab, dated 17.2.2010 that the aforesaid documents and films have been removed from the file. It is only alleged that copies of the x-ray films and reports are not being supplied to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State submitted that on investigation, the complaint filed by the petitioner was found to be false and Calendera under Section 182 Cr.P.C. has been presented in the court on 22.3.2010, which is still pending. Considering the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, no orders are required to be passed by this court in the petition filed by the petitioner as the petitioner has the liberty to avail of the remedy before the Magistrate concerned in case the FIR into the incident has not been registered and lead evidence there. Disposed of. 29.11.2011 ( Rajesh Bindal ) vs Judge