IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.26336-M of 2010 Date of Decision:5.4.2011 Mahinder Singh .... Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. R.K. Chandiwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rana, D.A.G. Haryana. Mr. Brijender Dhankar, Advocate for respondents No.5 and 6. Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for respondent No.7. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for issuance of direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to register a criminal case under Sections 420/467/468/471/506/34 IPC against respondents No.4 to 7. It is contended that respondent No.4, real brother of the petitioner, is a J.E. in HUDA Department and respondent No.5 is the sister- in-law of the petitioner. They have forged the documents pertaining with the House No.1944, property of petitioner in connivance and in collusion with respondents No.5,6,7 and others all together. It is further submitted that respondent No.5 submitted the forged documents before the Revenue Officer Chandigarh for getting the house No.1944 transfered in her name and in this respect the petitioner received a letter No.HBH/CRO.A./TA/94/8776 dated 20.7.1995 from the Revenue Officer, Chief Administrator Housing Board Haryana, in which the transfer of the House No.1944 was sought and the letter bears the signature of petitioner, Crl. M. No.26336-M of 2010 -2- which tallied with the original HPTA/application form. The petitioner was asked to attend the office. Whereas the petitioner had not signed any such document. Thus, respondents No.4 to 6 have fabricated the transfer papers by forging the signature of the petitioner while the petitioner being blind only puts his thumb impression instead of the signature. Reply of Rajender Singh, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, City Sonipat on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3-State has been filed. As per the reply, during the course of enquiry, it was found that matter was of civil nature and no cognizable offence had been committed by any person. Hence, on 28.4.2007, after going through the entire facts carefully, the said representations dated 13.3.2007 and 5.4.2007 were ordered to be filed by the then Superintendent of Police, Sonipat. Heard. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents has brought to the notice of the Court that suit for permanent injunction was also filed by the present petitioner against respondents No.4 to 7 in which a specific issue with respect to the ownership was framed. The said suit stand dismissed i.e. it has been decided against the petitioner. It is further submitted that in the said civil suit no such averment that the petitioner puts only thumb mark and does not sign was raised. Even otherwise, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported as 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 392 held as under:- “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 Crl. M. No.26336-M of 2010 -3- 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 Section 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.” Accordingly, in spite of the findings of the police report as well as civil court as above, in case the petitioner is still aggrieved and feels criminal case is still made out, he is at liberty to file criminal complaint or avail of any other alternative remedy in accordance with law. Disposed in the above terms. 5.4.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE