Balwinder Kaur vs The State of Punjab and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Balwinder Kaur has filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for directing respondent no. 2 Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala to take appropriate action on inquiry report Annexure P/7 and to initiate legal action against private respondents no. 3 to 7 as per recommendation made in the inquiry report. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Respondent no. 3 Kulwant Singh lodged FIR No. 176 dated 2.6.2009 under sections 365, 323, 147, 149 IPC, Police Station Samana, District Patiala, Annexure P/3 against petitioner''s husband Surjit Singh and others. Regarding the same occurrence, the petitioner is alleged to have made application Annexure P/5 dated 5.10.2009 seeking inquiry by a higher official in FIR Annexure P/3. Thereupon Superintendent of Police (Detective), Patiala that in spite of recommendation made in the inquiry report Annexure P/7, no action has been taken against private respondents. The aforesaid contention cannot be accepted at this stage. The instant petition itself is barred by delay and latches. The alleged occurrence submitted report dated 30.3.2010, Annexure P/7 making certain recommendations including recommendation for taking action against private respondents no. 3 to 6 and others to be identified by the petitioner. By filing this petition, the petitioner has sought action on the aforesaid recommendation made in the inquiry report Annexure P/7.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that in spite of recommendation made in the inquiry report Annexure P/7, no action has been taken against private respondents. The aforesaid contention cannot be accepted at this stage. The instant petition itself is barred by delay and latches. The alleged occurrence took place on 2.6.2009. The petitioner made application dated 5.10.2009 Annexure P/5 for inquiry. The inquiry report itself was submitted on 30.3.2010. However, the instant petition has been filed on 21.11.2012. There is no explanation for this long delay of almost 3� years since the date of occurrence, more than 3 years after making application Annexure P/5 and 2 years 8 months after inquiry report Annexure P/7.

In addition to the aforesaid, there was no legal provision for holding inquiry on the basis of application Annexure P/5 moved by the petitioner. Report dated 26.9.2009 u/s 173 Cr. P. C. (challan) had already been presented in FIR Annexure P/3 and it was thereafter that application Annexure P/5 was moved by the petitioner and inquiry report Annexure P/7 was submitted. There could only be further investigation in FIR Annexure P/3 u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. but there is no provision for the type of inquiry that has been held giving rise to inquiry report Annexure P/7. The said inquiry report, therefore, has no legal value.

Besides the aforesaid, the petitioner in substance seeks registration of FIR against private respondents. However, Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P., 2007(5) Law Herald (Supreme Court) 3910 has laid down that inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. should not ordinarily be exercised by this Court to order registration of FIR because the aggrieved person has other efficacious remedy of approaching Illaqa Magistrate for appropriate relief in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach Illaqa Magistrate for appropriate relief in accordance with law.