Masta vs State of Punjab

K.K. Srivastava, J.

The petitioner seeks issuance of a direction to the respondents to register FIR against respondents No. 5 to 17 for the offences punishable under Sections 420/423/465/467/468/471 IPC read Section 3(iv) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The petitioner/Masta, son of Nadar, resident of Chak Sarkar Bahadur Ke, tehsil Jalalabad, district Ferozepur, alongwith 46 others formed a Harijan Cooperative Society, Palla Magha, which was duly registered in April, 1958. A copy of the registration certificate is Annexure P1. The land measuring 2031 kanals 2 marlas was allotted to the said society by the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 11 of the Nazul Land (Transfer) Rules, 1956 and its mutation was also sanctioned. It was alleged that subsequently respondents No. 6 to 17 in connivance with the Halqa Patwari tampered with the revenue records and entered their names in the Khasragirdawari and some papers were got executed by the respondents in a fraudulent manner. The crops were standing on the land aforesaid and its possession was never handed over by the petitioner to the respondents. The petitioner approached the official respondents/authorities for registration of FIR in respect of the offences mentioned above, but no action was taken by them. Hence this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed.

Notice of motion was issued and written statement on behalf of official respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 in the shape of affidavit of Shri Gurcharan Singh Pheru, IPS, Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur was filed. The stand taken by the said respondents was that the petition was filed at a belated stage and was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. it was further alleged that the matter regarding possession over the disputed land and regarding genuineness and validity of the revenue record and other documents was pending in the Court of Shri D.R. Arora, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ferozepur and as such, this petition amounted to abuse of process of the Court and was, thus, not maintainable. Even on merits, the allegations of the petitioner were denied.

Ms. Nirmaljeet Kaur, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the pendency of the civil case was not a bar in the registration of the FIR, which was to be registered under Section 154(1) Cr.P.C., as the commission of the noncognizable offences had been disclosed.

After carefully considering the matter and also taking into view the settled proposition of law that the Magistrate is competent to order for registration of the FIR in a criminal complaint having been filed before him and ask for investigation of the same, I deem, it appropriate to dispose of this petition by relegating the petitioner to his remedy of approaching the Court of competent jurisdiction for seeking appropriate remedy by filing a criminal complaint under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the alternative remedy, which is equally efficacious, is available to the petitioner, this Court will be reluctant to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to proceed to consider the matter for registration of the FIR.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by relegating the petitioner to his remedy of filing a criminal complaint before the court of competent jurisdiction. It is directed that as and when such a complaint is filed, the court shall proceed to deal with the matter expeditiously and preferably within a period of one month from the date of filing of the petition.