Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narider Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Others on 31 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014775
123 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-5880-2025
Date of decision: 31.01.2025
Narinder Sharma ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Petitioner in person.
Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for issuance of directions to respondents No.2
to 4 for taking action against the complaint No.7944-PC-COP dated 03.10.2024
(Annexure P-7) filed by the petitioner on 23.09.2024 against respondent No.5.
2. Petitioner who is present in the Court inter alia contends that he is
suffering from Carcicona (Cancer) which was diagnosed in the year 2013 and
he is getting treatment from Tata Memorial Hospital at Mumbai. He further
submits that respondent No.5, who is his neighbour is fully aware about his
condition and unnecessarily and continuously threatening, troubling and
torturing the petitioner and his family members. On 11.11.2019, respondent
No.5 roams around in the lane with his licensed revolver and threatening the
petitioner and his family members by firing openly in front of the house of the
petitioner and showing his dominance on the pretext of holding a revolver. It is
thus prayed to issue an appropriate direction to the official respondents to
investigate the complaint (supra).
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014775
3. Per contra, the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI
Manish, submits that the representation filed by the petitioner has been decided
on 29.01.2025 and the veracity of the allegations made by the petitioner has
been thoroughly examined and it has been determined that they are false.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the representation is without any substance and
consigned to the record. The jurisdictional police authorities have already
registered two FIRs against private respondent No.5. He further submits that
the petitioner has approached this Court without taking recourse to the
provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the
record of the case with their able assistance, this Court finds no force in the
arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
5. A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu
Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2008) 2 SCC 409 has held that the Magistrate has
been bestowed with all necessary powers to ensure proper investigation under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Discouraging the practice of approaching the High Court
for redressal of grievances like non-registration of FIR or improper
investigation, Justice Markandey Katju made the following observations:
"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 Criminal Procedure Code 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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014775
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) Criminal Procedure Code before
the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200
Criminal Procedure Code and not by filing a writ petition or a
petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code.
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."
6. This ratio was reiterated in the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhange
and others, (2016) 6 SCC 277, M. Subramaniam and another Vs. S. Janaki
and another, (2020) 16 SCC 728, Dilawar Singh vs. State of Delhi 2007(4)
R.C.R(Criminal) 115.
7. The High Courts, while exercising its inherent powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., can issue directions for prompt and proper investigation,
however, it would be out of bounds to instruct the investigation to be completed
in a certain time frame, in alignment with the opinion expressed by it. The
Courts must be conscious of its influence and not exercise the same in an
unwarranted fashion as it may prejudice the conclusion of the investigating
agency, straying further away from achieving the overarching goal of justice.
8. Further, even though the jurisdictional Magistrate is well equipped
to deal with such type of matters, learned counsel for the petitioner has not able
to provide a satisfactory response regarding approaching this Court directly
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014775
instead of the concerned jurisdictional Court by filing an appropriate
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not
inclined to issue any such direction. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed
being bereft of any merit.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
31.01.2025
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
