Ranjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others

Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, J

The present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of directions to respondents No. 2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner which is being threatened at the hands of private respondents No. 4 to 8 and despite a detailed representation, dated 28.11.2023 (Annexure P-2), no action has been taken by respondent No. 3, thereby violating the directions issued by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P. and others 2023 (9) SCC 695.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner gave a detailed representation, dated 28.11.2023 (Annexure P-2), alleging that on 16.11.2023 at about 11:00 a.m., the petitioner along with her two minor children, aged about 15-16 years, were present in the house when respondent No. 7-Subana Begam came to the house of the petitioner alongwith an electrician for getting some repair work done. However, the petitioner wanted her husband to be present during the repair work. The allegations are that the respondent No. 7 sexually abused the petitioner. The petitioner gave a complaint/representation, dated 28.11.2023 (Annexure P-2) to respondent No. 2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur. However, no action has been taken so far.

A status report, dated 05.02.2024, by way of an affidavit of Sh. Mandeep Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Sunam, District Sangrur, has already been filed.

Learned counsel for the State while referring to the said status report, contends that on the complaint given by the petitioner, as well as after receiving the information on 112 (helpline number), ASI Rajinder Singh reached the spot and recorded the statement of witnesses. During the inquiry, Binder Khan and Sandeep Khan (respondents No. 4 and 5) started abusing the complainant and her son Ravi and also extended threats of dire consequences. Keeping in view the apprehension of breach of peace and danger to the life and liberty of the complainant, proceedings were initiated under Seciton 107/151 Cr.P.C. and respondents No. 4 and 5 were arrested. DDR No. 20, dated 05.12.2023 was registered. Proceedings are annexed as Annexure R-1/T with the report. Thereafter, a detailed inquiry was conducted and the inquiry report has also been annexed as Annexure R-2/T with the status report. It is further contended that the petitioner has not produced any medical record of the injuries allegedly sustained during the fight or admission in any hospital out of the alleged fight which took place on 16.11.2023, as such, recommendations were made by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, to file complaint made by the petitioner.

I have considered the aforesaid submissions.

The petitioner is aggrieved with the non-action on the part of the police on the basis of the representation dated 28.11.2023 (Annexure P-2). However, as per the police report action under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C was taken. However, there is no hospital record regarding the occurrence, dated 16.11.2023. As such representation is closed.

As per the provisions of Section 156 of the Cr.P.C., a police officer is authorized to investigate a cognizable case which takes place within the local area of his jurisdiction. However, where the Station House Officer fails to record the statement of the informant under Section 154 of the Code and fails to investigate the case which is a cognizable case, the Magistrate has powers under sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Code and is empowered under Section 190 of the Code to order such an investigation.

Section 156 of the Code reads as under:-

“156. Police officer' s power to investigate cognizable case.

(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.

(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.

(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above- mentioned.”

Under the provisions of Section 190 of the Code, a magistrate is empowered to take cognizance even upon a complaint filed by a private person.

Section 190 of the Code is reproduced as under:-

“190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub- section (2), may take cognizance of any offence-

(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;

(b) upon a police report of such facts;

(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.

(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub- section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.”

As such, the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of an offence upon a complaint filed before him under Section 190 (1) (a) of the Code and in addition to this, magistrate can also order for investigation in a cognizable case under Section 156 (3) of the Code.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others 2008 (2) SCC 409, has held that Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation and it includes the power to order registration of an F.I.R. and order of proper investigation, if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done. It was further held that Magistrate also has wide powers to ensure proper investigation and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that investigation is done properly. The High Court should discourage the practice of filing of writ petitions or petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, simply because a person is aggrieved of an FIR not being registered by the police.

Since the petitioner in the present case is aggrieved of non-action on the part of the police authorities for registration of the case as well as for conducting proper investigation, as such there is an efficacious remedy available under the Code or by way of approaching the Area Magistrate either under Section 190 of the Code or by way of filing a criminal complaint or by approaching the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Code seeking a direction for investigation.

The petitioner has not availed the said efficacious remedy available to her under Section 156 (3) and under Section 190 of the Code but the present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code invoking the inherent powers of this Court.

The extra-ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code have to be exercised sparingly and should not be exercised where other remedies are available to a litigant and the same have not been availed. Keeping in view of the facts of the case, it is not a fit case to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. The petitioner may avail the alternate remedy by approaching the Area Magistrate under Section 190 or under Section 156 (3) of the Code.

In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the present petition is liable to be dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail her remedy as per law.

Consequently,  the  petition  is  dismissed  with  the  liberty aforesaid.