Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shampa Kumar And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Others on 17 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:036271
275 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-49596-2021
Date of decision: 17.03.2025
Shampa Kumar and another ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Harneet Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Vikram Anand, Advocate
for respondent No.7.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
issuance of directions to respondents No.1 to 4 to take legal action against
respondents No.5 to 8 and to ensure that the petitioner may not be harassed and
pressurized by respondents No.5 to 8.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that
petitioners have studied together and have done BDS and decided to marry
each other which fact is opposed by respondents No.6 to 8 as petitioner No.1
belongs to scheduled caste and petitioner No.2 is brahman by caste. Despite
opposition, the petitioners have solemnized marriage on 08.04.2018 and started
residing together along with respondent No.7 in the house owned by late father
of petitioner No.2. He further submits that ever since the marriage of the
petitioners, the behaviour of respondents No.6 to 8 was not good only for the
reason that petitioner No.1 belongs to a scheduled caste. On 10.01.2020,
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:036271
petitioner No.1 gave birth to a daughter and a son, however, respondents No.6
to 8 kept on harassing the petitioners and consequently, it has been mutually
decided that respondent No.7 shall reside on the first floor of the house and
petitioners along with their children shall stay on the ground floor of the house
but respondent No.7 did not mend her ways and started uttering bad words
regarding caste of petitioner No.1 and further started asking the petitioners to
vacate the house. Consequently, petitioner No.2 was constrained to file civil
suit for permanent injunction restraining respondents No.6 & 7 and sister of
petitioner No.2 from dispossessing the petitioner from the ground floor of the
house. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gurdaspur vide order dated
03.06.2021 directed the defendants of the suit to maintain status quo over the
house. Thereafter, respondents No.6 to 8 in connivance with each other
scuffled with petitioner No.2 and extended threats to the petitioners that they
will be implicated in a false case. It is thus prayed to issue an appropriate
direction to the official respondents to take legal action against respondents
No.5 to 8.
3. Per contra, the learned State Counsel refers to the status report and
submits that the veracity of the allegations made by the petitioners has been
thoroughly examined and it was concluded that no further action is required, as
the dispute concerns family members in relation to the partition of property and
a civil suit in this regard is currently pending adjudication. He further submits
that respondent No. 6 has since retired and no cause of action is agitated against
him.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:036271
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 petitioners.
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."
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:036271
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 petitioners has not
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)
JUDGE
17.03.2025
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
