IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-3238 of 2010 Date of decision : 18.2.2010 Manoj Kumar …. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others …. Respondents Present: Mr. Y.D. Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) has been filed for directing respondents No.1 to 3 to get case FIR No.112 dated 13.12.2009 registered at Police Station Tigaon, District Faridabad for the offences under Sections 307/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act thoroughly investigated. A further prayer has been made for directing respondents No.2 and 3 to take immediate action in the aforesaid FIR against the accused. The FIR (Annexure P1) in the case has been registered on the statement of Manoj Kumar (petitioner). It is alleged that mother of the petitioner left her matrimonial home in 1994 and started Crl. Misc. No. M-3238 of 2010 [2] living with Ombir Singh, maternal uncle of the petitioner. The petitioner was the only son. His father did not take care of him. Therefore, the petitioner left his home in the year 2000 and started living with his maternal uncle. The father of the petitioner died on 25.1.2009. The petitioner after the death of his father along with his mother went to live in their house at village Kaurali. There they came to know that the father of the petitioner had transferred his land measuring 5½ acres in favour of his uncles Mahender Singh (Chacha), Sunder Singh (Taya) and son of Sunder Singh namely Jit Singh. A day earlier i.e. on 12.12.2009, the petitioner had gone to inform Jagpal son of his uncle (Taya) namely Lakhmi Chand at his tubewell. When he was returning at about 7.30/8 p.m. then on the way Arvind son of Mahender Singh along with two others whose names he did not know called the petitioner and started quarrelling with him. The petitioner then ran towards the fields of Jai Ram. However Arvind and his two companions caught him and slapped him. Arvind from his pant took out a pistol like weapon and fired with an intention to kill, the shot however, did not hit the petitioner. He then again fired on the petitioner which hit on the knee of his left leg. The petitioner then raised a hue and cry of ‘mar dita mar dita’ and all the three then ran away. The petitioner reached home with great difficulty. He was brought to the Civil Hospital, Ballabgarh for treatment and was referred to the Escorts Hospital, where he was admitted by his family members. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite registration of the FIR on 13.12.2009, no action has been taken by the police. Crl. Misc. No. M-3238 of 2010 [3] After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the primary grievance of the petitioner is that there has been in action on the part of the police in carrying out effective and proper investigation. In respect of the said grievance, the petitioner in the first instance is liable to approach the Ilaqa Magistrate. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP and others, 2008 (1) RCR (Crl.) 392, it was observed by the Supreme Court that Section 156(3) CrPC is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation and it includes the power to order registration of a FIR and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the Police. In State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604, it has been observed that a Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of the police investigation although he is not authorized to interfere with the actual investigation or to direct the police how the investigation is to be conducted. However, in case the investigating authorities transgress the circumscribed limits of their jurisdiction and improperly and illegally exercise their investigatory powers in breach of any statutory provision causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty and also property of a citizen, then the Court on being approached by the person aggrieved for the redressal of any grievance has to consider the nature and extent of the breach and pass appropriate orders as may be called for without leaving the citizens to the mercy of police echelons since human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution. Crl. Misc. No. M-3238 of 2010 [4] In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner in the first instance may approach the Ilaqa Magistrate for the redressal of his grievance regarding allegations of inaction by the Police Officials in not carrying out proper investigations. It is needless to submit that if such an application is made, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same in accordance with law. The Crl. Misc. petition is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE February 18, 2010 amit