Sukhdarshan Singh vs State of Punjab

K.K. Srivastava, J.

This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a direction to the respondents for registration of a case and to investigate the same against respondents No. 4 to 7. Petitioner No. 1, it was alleged, has been active in politics for the last so many years and was a candidate of Akali Dal from Muktsar in the election to the State Assembly which were scheduled to be held in 1991 but were postponed. He was, however, elected as Sarpanch of village Mrar Kalan, Tehsil and District Muktsar and is also a member of the Zila Parishad, Faridkot. The said village falls in the constituency of the then Chief Minister H.S. Brar. The petitioner was put to lot of harassment when Shri H.S. Brar assumed the Chief Ministership of Punjab. He has alleged that on 18.10.1995 respondents No. 4 to 6 drove their tractor through the fields of the petitioners having sugarcane crop in four acres and fodder in two acres. The crop valued at rupees more than one lac was destroyed by the running of the tractor in the fields. The petitioners approached the SHO of the concerned Police Station for registration of a case against the said respondents and also met the SSP who directed Deputy Superintendent of Police to listen to the petitioner and take necessary actions as per facts and law. The Police have failed to take any action and did not investigate the case. The SHO after a great deal of reluctance registered DDR No. 9 dated 19.10.1995, a copy of which has been filed as annexure P3 but no further action was taken.

Notice of motion was issued to the respondents who put in appearance. Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed their separate written statement. Respondents No. 4 to 6 filed separate written statement while respondents No. 3 and 7 also filed their written statement denying the averments made in the petition. It was alleged by respondents No. 1 and 2 that petitioner No. 1 got a written complaint addressed to the SHO of the concerned Police Station Mandi Bariwala and submitted the same to the SSP, Faridkot. No application was submitted to SSP Muktsar on 19.10.1995. It was categorically denied that the petitioners immediately rushed to the Police Station Bariwala and informed about the occurrence to respondent No. 4 who advised them to let the matter be discussed with respondent No. 7. It was submitted that petitioner No. 1 had filed a copy of application annexure P3 to MHC, Police Station Bariwala who produced the same and a report was recorded at Serial No. 9 at 1.40 p.m. in the DDR which disclosed an offence under Section 427 of Indian Penal Code which is a noncognizable offence.

Respondent No. 3, the concerned ASISHO, Police Station Bariwala took the same plea as taken in the written statement of respondents No. 1 and 2. The other respondents denied the averments made in the petition.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents and perused the record of the case.

This writ petition, in my considered view, deserves to be dismissed in the light of the judgment rendered in the case of All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and others, 1996(4) Crimes 180 (SC) by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. It was held by the Apex Court that the petitioner is not entitled to approach the High Court by filing the writ petition and seeking a direction to conduct the investigation by the CBI without availing of the procedure provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was further held that CBI is not required to investigate into all or every offence. The following observations made in para 4 of the said judgment make the whole picture categorically clear :

"When the information is laid with the police but no action in that behalf was taken, the complainant is given power under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to inquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate after recording evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the concerned police to investigate into the offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would issue process to the accused."

In the instant case also, the petitioners have rushed to this Court by filing a criminal writ petition without availing the remedy as provided under Chapter XV of the Code by filing a criminal complaint before the Court of concerned Magistrate and a prayer has been made to entrust the investigation of the case to some independent Agency. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. The petitioners, if so advised, may seek alternative remedy by filing a criminal complaint as provided for the Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure.