Crl. Misc. No. M-36626 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-36626 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.12.2010 Jai Bhagwan ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) The petitioner has preferred this petition in inherent jurisdiction of this court seeking registration of FIR on the basis of complaint, Annexure P-1 on the ground that same discloses a cognizable offence. It has also been prayed that investigation of the case be transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that despite two complaints dated 24.9.2010 and 26.10.2010 (Annexures P1 & P2) respectively, followed by the representation to the Director General of Police dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure P-3), police has failed to register an FIR in respect of the offences alleged. He submits that a perusal of the complaints/representation would show that a cognizable offence is made out and police has failed in its statutory duty to register an FIR. He has Crl. Misc. No. M-36626 of 2010 2 further submitted that in view of the enormity of the crime involved, the investigation deserves to be transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record annexed to the petition. A perusal of complaint, Annexure P1 shows that the entire dispute is concerning the internal affairs of Sanatan Dharam Education Society, Panipat. It has been alleged therein that elections to the Society were held on 15th September, 2009 whereafter thirteen members were illegally inducted in the Society by the private respondents. Due to this, they usurped various posts in the Society such as President, Vice President etc. This apart, certain allegations of fraud and forgery have been made in the complaint. It has been alleged that minutes-book of the Society was tampered with by wrongfully making certain entries in the same. It is, thus, clear that there appears to be some dispute between members of the Society, concerning which a complaint has been made to the police. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court does not find it a fit case for interference in inherent jurisdiction of this court. Needless to observe that in case any cognizable offence is made out, effective remedy is available to the petitioner by way of complaint or petition under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as laid down by the apex court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. And others, 2008 (1) R.C.R. 392. The prayer regarding handing over the investigation is misconceived as no Crl. Misc. No. M-36626 of 2010 3 investigation is pending at the moment. The petition is, thus, devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 14.12.2010 'rajpal'