Sher Singh vs State of Haryana

R.P. Nagrath, J.—The instant petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer that the investigation of complaint dated 2.2.2014 (Annexure P-1) and application dated 11.2.2014 (Annexure P-2) which inter alia disclosed commission of offences under Sections 364-A/506 read with Section 120-B IPC etc. by respondents No. 4 to 6 be entrusted to some independent agency other than Bhiwani Police to resist the local political influence, pressure and reaches of respondents No. 4 to 6 and preferably to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or that a Special Investigating Team may be constituted to enquire into the above-stated complaints which the petitioner has moved against respondents No. 4 to 6.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner entered into matrimony with Usha as per Hindu Rites on 15.2.1995 at Jaipur (Rajasthan). After marriage the petitioner and his wife resided together in Bhiwani and two sons, namely; Himanshu now aged about 17 years and Punit now aged about 14 years were born out of this wedlock. It is further contended that Usha wife of the petitioner had developed illicit relations with respondent No. 4-Nishant and in the month of January, 2008 she ran away from the house of her parents without any intimation to anyone and the matter was reported to the police. She was arrested by the police and produced before the Magistrate at Jaipur where she made a statement that she did not want to reside with the petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner tried his level best to bring Usha back to his house but in vain. She treated the petitioner with cruelty and deserted him without any cause. The petitioner had filed petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of his marriage which was decreed ex parte vide judgment and decree dated 15.11.2008 (Annexures P-3 and P-4, respectively) passed by the learned District Judge, Bhiwani. It is also contended that on the intervening night of 20.4.2008, Usha left the house of her parents at about 10.00 p.m. and did not return back. Efforts were made to search her but no clue could be found. DDR No. 10 dated 22.4.2008 was also got recorded in this regard. Subsequently, the petitioner and others got information that Usha was abducted by respondent No. 4-Nishan and one Mangi Ram @ Parveen at some unknown place and they were forcibly committing rape on her.

It is further contended that FIR No. 174 dated 24.6.2008 under Sections 347/366/376 and 120-B IPC was got registered in this regard against respondent No. 4-Nishant and Mangi Ram aforesaid at Police Station Jaipur City North. It is further contended that respondent No. 4 and his accomplices have been threatening the sons of the petitioner, namely; Himanshu and Punit that they would abduct or murder them if the demanded ransom was not paid to them. It is further contended that respondent No. 4 had enticed away the sons of the petitioner but when they apprehended danger to their lives they somehow managed to escape from the clutches of Nishant aforesaid. The petitioner has made complaint dated 2.2.2014 (Annexure P-1) and application dated 11.2.2014 (Annexure P-2) in this regard to respondents No. 2 and 3 but no action has been taken thereon so far. Hence the present petition.

Looking into the facts of this case, I am of the considered view that no indulgence of this Court is required. Various options are available to the petitioner to pursue his remedy of this nature.

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?

In view of the above and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this matter does not need indulgence of this Court in exercise of its inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. It is 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 the above observations.