Neel Kamal vs State of Punjab and Others

R.P. Nagrath, J.—This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 for

registration of a case under Sections 406, 323, 420, 506, 379 read with Section 34 IPC against respondents No. 4 to 7, namely; Bhawna, Vikas

Jately, Gita Jately and Jyoti Jately and further for taking necessary steps for ensuring safety of the petitioner and his family members on account of

threats to their lives at the hands of respondents No. 4 to 7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the marriage of petitioner

with respondent No. 4-Bhawna was solemnized on 12.5.2013 at Jalandhar as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies. After four days of the marriage at

about 3.30 p.m. respondent No. 4 fell on the earth and became unconscious. At that time, the petitioner was away to his job and his sister and

father told this fact to him. Shakti Sharma, the sister of the petitioner also made a telephone call to the mother of respondent No. 4. After some

days, respondent No. 4 started quarreling with the petitioner, his sister and his father and started throwing out utensils from the kitchen and use

filthy language against them. The petitioner informed the mother of respondent No. 4 about her conduct. Thereafter, the mother and brother of

respondent No. 4 came to their house and admitted that she is suffering from epilepsy and looses self-control and behaves abnormally with each

and everyone. The petitioner subsequently had been providing best treatment to respondent No. 4 so that she could behave in a normal manner

but she refused to take medicine and her problem aggravated. Subsequently, on 13.6.2013 at about 7.30 p.m. respondents No. 5 to 7 and one

un-identified person came to the house of the petitioner. However, at that time only the sisters of the petitioner were present. Respondents No. 4

to 7 in the absence petitioner, took away 13 tolas of gold jewellery, clothes and other costly goods in two brief-cases. Thereafter, the petitioner

made a complaint dated 13.6.2013 (Annexure P-1) to the police post Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana about the said incident. On the very

next day, the petitioner went to the house of respondent No. 4 but she flatly refused to accompany him and further refused to return back all the

articles which she had taken away in his absence. When no action was taken on the complaint of the petitioner, his father made a complaint dated

16.12.2013 (Annexure P-2) to the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana. The petitioner and his family are facing severe threats to their lives and

liberty at the hands of respondents No. 4 to 7 who are harassing them and trying to falsely implicate them in a dowry case. Hence, the present

petition.

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?

Considering the facts of the instant case, the matter does not need indulgence of this Court in exercise of its inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. In

case a complaint is filed before a Magistrate, it is, 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 the above observations.