Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajesh Kehar vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 1 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029321
104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CHANDIGARH
CRWP-2038-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 01.03.2025
RAJESH KEHAR
...Petitioner
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Divya Gulati, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India seeking issuance of directions to respondents No. 2 and 3 to protect the
life and liberty to the petitioner and his family members at the hands of
respondents No. 4 to 6 and also to direct respondents No. 1 to 3 to enquire the
complaints (Annexure P-1 to P-4) made by the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that
respondents No. 4 to 6 and their associates, have two times attacked upon the
petitioner's son with the intention to kill him but he somehow escaped and
still the petitioner and his son have apprehension of their lives being in
danger from anti-social elements who are hand in gloves with the private
respondents.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel on instructions from Investigating
Officer submits that veracity of the allegations made by the petitioner have
been thoroughly examined and no truth has been found in the same. There is a
private dispute between the petitioner and private respondents with regard to
management of Temple Committee and the threat perception to the petitioner
and his family members, has been dispassionately examined and it was found
that there is no threat to the life and liberty of the petitioner.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029321
CRWP-2038-2025 (O&M) -2-
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 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."
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029321
CRWP-2038-2025 (O&M) -3-
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 been able to provide a satisfactory response regarding approaching
this Court directly 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)
01.03.2025 JUDGE
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
