CRM No. M 25735 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 25735 of 2008 Date of decision: 14.05.2010 Smt. Rajwati ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Pardip Virk, D. A.G. Haryana for the respondent - State Mr. R. S Sihota, Senior Advocate with Mr. B R Rana, Advocate for respondents No. 5 to 9 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of directions for handing over the investigation in case FIR No. 59 dated 08.02.2003 under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, Police Station Sector -7, Faridabad through Central Bureau of Investigation or any other independent agency for carving out the truth of the whole matter. In pursuance to the order dated 12.01.2010 passed by this Court, status report of Badan Singh, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of CRM No. M 25735 of 2008 2 Police, City Ballabgarh, Faridabad was submitted wherein it is stated that the matter was investigated and after completion of the investigation, cancellation report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared on 15.04.2004 which was submitted in the court. However, the petitioner challenged the aforesaid cancellation report before this Court vide CRM M 53924 of 2007 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.12.2007 by observing as under:- “Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner will avail of an alternative remedy before the Court concerned by filing a protest petition against the cancellation/untraced report and that he does not want to pursue the present petition and the same may be allowed to be withdrawn.” The petitioner in pursuance to the same, also filed a protest petition before the Illaqa Magistrate. Accordingly, fresh investigation was ordered by the trial court. Another status report was filed on 05.05.2010 before this Court stating therein that no incriminating evidence has come on record against the alleged persons, namely, Ranbir and Rajbir who were joined in the investigation. However, effort was being made to trap the real culprits. It was also stated before this Court, on instructions from ASI Hari Singh, that the final report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. in pursuance to the fresh investigation shall be submitted in the near future. 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, wherein, it is held that 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. CRM No. M 25735 of 2008 3 Para 27 and 28 of the aforesaid judgement are reproduced hereunder:- “27. 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 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.” The facts of the present case do not warrant investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation. The Magistrate has ample powers under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to order fresh investigation and even monitor the investigation as also held by the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu's case (Supra) The petitioner has already availed the remedy by filing a protest petition before the trial court. Fresh investigation was also ordered. Final report is likely to be submitted soon on the basis of the fresh investigation. In case, challan is filed against the accused, the petitioner shall have no CRM No. M 25735 of 2008 4 more grievance. However, in case, closure report is filed, the petitioner is free to raise all the pleas as raised herein before the trial Court. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed on the final report, he shall have the remedy to challenge the same in accordance with law. Disposed off in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 14.05.2010 mohan