IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M-34018 of 2008 Date of decision: 8.1.2009 Rambiri …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and ors …Respondents Present: Mr Surinder Dagar, Advocate for the petitioner. S.S. SARON, J. This petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed for directing the respondents to investigate the case FIR 122 dated 4.7.2008 (Annexure P1) registered at PS Hathin District Palwal for the offence under Section 420 IPC and for further directing the respondents to arrest the accused-persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the husband of the petitioner namely Sham Lal made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Mewat on 10.3.2008 which was referred to the SDO (Civil) Hathin for conducting an inquiry. In the inquiry that was conducted, it was found that in the land mentioned in Khewat No.180, the share of Girraj son of Shiv Ram was 7 Marlas and he had sold the same on 14.7.2006 vide Deed No.1570 to Bhim Singh and Nakul, sons of Rattan Lal for a consideration of Rs 65,000/-. Mutation No.2823 in this regard was entered on 29.9.2006 and was sanctioned on 1.12.2006. After the sale and sanction of mutation, the aforesaid Girraj sold the same land to Rambiri (petitioner) 1 Criminal Misc M-34018 of 2008 for a consideration of Rs 68,250/- vide Deed No.781 dated 1.6.2007. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner has been cheated and the Police is not investigating the matter and is not arresting the accused. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the investigation of a cognizable offence is the field and domain of the Police whose powers in the said field are unfettered. This, however, is subject to the rider that the power to investigate a cognizable offence is exercised in compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Courts normally are not justified in interfering with the investigation. In terms of Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure a Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of the Police investigation even though he is not authorized to interfere in the actual investigation or direct the Police as to how the investigation is to be conducted. However, in case there is in-action on the part of the Police or there is failure to exercise the investigating power, the Magistrate on being approached by a citizen has to consider the nature and extent of the breach and pass appropriate order, as held in State of Haryana and ors v. Ch Bhajan Lal and ors AIR 1992 SC 604. Therefore, keeping in view the in-action on the part of the Police authorities as has been alleged by the petitioner, it would in the facts and circumstances of the case be just and expedient that the petitioner in the first instance approaches the Ilaqa Magistrate setting out his grievances. In case such an application is made, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same in accordance with law. The petition stands disposed of. 8.1.2009. ( S.S.SARON ) 2 Criminal Misc M-34018 of 2008 ASR JUDGE 3