Manjot Kaur vs State of Punjab

R.P. Nagrath, J.—This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner seeking directions to take action against the respondents No. 5 to 17 and to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner and his family.

The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is a resident of Gobind Nagri, Jalalabad, District Fazilka and is a house hold lady. She has four sisters and one brother and all are married. Brother of the petitioner and one Seema Rani had love affair and when they became major they decided to perform marriage but the respondents No. 5 to 17 i.e. family members of Seema Rani did not agree to that marriage alliance. The brother of the petitioner and Seema Rani daughter of Gurdev Singh contracted marriage against the wishes of her parents and family members. Respondents No. 5 to 17 started threatening Seema Rani and her brother to eliminate them.

Aggrieved against the conduct of respondents No. 5 to 17, Seema Rani filed CRM M-9140 of 2014 before this Court for protection of life and liberty in which this Court issued directions to SSP, Fazilka to protect the life and liberty of Seema Rani.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondents No. 5 to 17 are criminal type of persons and the local police is hand in glove with them. Being afraid Seema Rani and brother of petitioner went hiding and took shelter in the house of sister of petitioner at Village Kotu Fangian.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on 16.03.2014, the petitioner came at the house of her brother in law to meet her sister. Seema Rani (sister in law of the petitioner) was also present there. Respondents No. 5 to 17 came on a vehicle. Sukhdev Singh-respondent No. 5 raised a lalkara and then accused Malkiat Singh gave a kick blow on the stomach of petitioner. Respondent No. 6-Balbir Kaur gave a dang blow to the petitioner which hit on the chest of petitioner and the respondents No. 5 to 17 dragged the petitioner and Seema Rani. The respondents No. 5 to 17 tried to throw the petitioner in the jeep forcibly and tried to kidnap the petitioner and her sister in law. The petitioner and her sister in law raised alarm to save themselves. In the meantime, the villagers gathered there and rescued the petitioner and her sister in law. Respondents No. 5 to 17 then ran away from the spot.

Learned State counsel submits that as per reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 the brother of the petitioner i.e. Arjan Dev Singh, is an accused in FIR No. 100 dated 25.09.2013 for the offence under Sections 363, 366-A/120-B IPC registered at PS Arniwala and he was arrested.

In view of the facts of the case, I do not feel that this court should show its indulgence in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. The instant petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy in accordance with law. Various options are available to the petitioner to pursue her remedy.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Others, held that 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. It was further held as under:

If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police u/s 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies?

It would be however for the Magistrate to decide the appropriate course how to proceed in the complaint made to it, on application of mind, whether proceed to take cognizance of the complaint or to take action u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.

The instant petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy in accordance with law.