Amarjeet Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 3248 P&H

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3248 P&H
Judgement Date : 12 March, 2025

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Amarjeet Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 March, 2025

                                      Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:034964




125        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                                   CRM-M-13659-2025
                                                   Date of decision: 12.03.2025

AMARJEET SINGH
                                                                ...PETITIONER
                          V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
                                                            ...RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present:    Mr. Akun Sheemar, Advocate
            for the petitioner.
                   ****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR,
               BRAR J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023

for issuance of directions to respondent Nos.1 No 1 to 3 to investigate into the

complaint dated 05.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) P ) of the petitioner as per law and

take appropriate action against respondent Nos.4 Nos.4 and 5.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the

petitioner facilitated an introduction between Parvez Alam (respondent No.5)

and one Sandeep for propose of contracting mining work. Pursuant to the

arrangement, the petitioner transferred an amount of Rs.3 lakh to the account

of Sandeep eep for mining work. However, respondent No.5 refrained to carry out

the mining work and started demanding the afore afore-mentioned amount. He

submits that for purpose of taking his money back back, private respondents invited

the petitioner to the residence of respondent respondent No.4 and demanded their money

back and they also demanded a cheque from petitioner for an amount of Rs.3

lakhs as security. When the petitioner refused to do so, tthey misbehaved with

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:034964

CRM-M-13659

him and threatened to kill him and also to face dire consequences. They

forcefully snatched the keys of the car owned by the petitioner and parked the

same inside the house of respondent No.4. The said vehicle contained red red-

coloured bag, in which, which important documents, personal clothing of petitioner

and a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-

Rs.1,60, were kept and the private respondents refused the

petitioner to take possession of his articles and money. It is thus prayed to

issue directions to respondent Nos.1 No to 3 to inquire into the complaint

(Annexure P-1)) as per law.

3. Having heard learned learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing

the record of the case with her able assistance, this Court finds no force in the

arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

4. 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 non-registration of FIR or

improper er 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 monito 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 per 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

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:034964

CRM-M-13659

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."

5. This ratio was reiterated in the judgments rrendered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant

Dhange and others, (2016) 6 SCC 277 and M. Subramaniam and another

Vs. S. Janaki and another, (2020) 16 SCC 728.

6. 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.

7. Further, even though the jurisdictiona jurisdictional Magistrate is well