Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1268 (PNJ)

Bhag Chand v. State Of Punjab

2000-10-19

V.M.JAIN

body2000
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the official respondent to register a FIR against the private respondents. 2. In the petition, it was alleged that on purchase of some land vide sale deed dated 21.5.1991; they were in possession of the said land since the date of the purchase and had raised construction thereon. It was alleged that on 31.12.1999 at about 4.00 P.M., respondents No. 4 to 13 along with 15 to 16 police officials, under political pressure, came to the land of the petitioners and started beating the petitioners and the petitioners were forcibly dispossessed from the land in dispute and private respondents 4 to 13 were allowed to take the possession of the land in dispute, inspite of the fact that the petitioners had told them that they are the owner of the land in question and respondent 4 to 13 had no right to take the possession of the said land. It was alleged that immediately after the incident, the father of the petitioners made a complaint to the Senior Police Officers. Copy of the complaint dated 31.12.1999 was annexed as Annexure P-1 with the present petition. It was alleged that no action has been taken by the police. It was alleged that the petitioners alon made a complaint dated 22.1.2000, copy Annexure P-2, to S.H.O. and also approached the S.D.M. but no action has been taken. It was prayed that respondents No. 1 to 3 be directed to register a case against respondent No. 4 to 13 and to investigate the same in accordance with law. 3. Reply was filed by Shri Ajay Maluja, D.S.P. Fazlika on behalf of respondent No. 1 to 3, alleging therein that even though in the Revenue record Bhag Chand, Harmesh Singh and Major Singh were recorded as owners of the land in question but this land was in possession of Major Singh and he had never transferred the same in favour of the petitioners. It was denied that the police officials had ever gone to the spot and had dispossessed any person from the land in question. It was denied that the police officials had ever gone to the spot and had dispossessed any person from the land in question. On the other hand, it was alleged that as per the enquiry conducted by the police, Major Singh was in possession of the said land and that respondent No. 4 to 13 had no concern with the said Khasra i.e. Khasra No. 127 and they were owner in possession of Khasra No. 116 which was adjacent to Khasra No. 127. It was also alleged that on the representation of the petitioners, detailed enquiry was conducted but no truth was found therein and hence the said representation was filed without taking any action against any person. It was alleged that the petitioners were never dispossessed from the Khasra No. 127 which was in possession of Major Singh. It was denied that the petitioners were ever delivered the possession of Khasra No. 127. It was further alleged that since no cognizable offence was committed by respondent No. 4 to 13, there was no question of registering of any FIR and hence the representations made by the petitioners were ordered to be filed. 4. In the petition, the petitioners filed rejoinder. It was denied that the land in question was in possession of Major Singh. It was pleaded that the possession of the land was delivered to the petitioners after they had purchased the land vide sale deed dated 21.5.1999. It was alleged that the police had not conducted any enquiry, on the other hand the police officials under political pressure had forcibly dispossessed the petitioners from the land in dispute and had started beating the petitioners. It was denied that respondents 4 to 13 were owners in possession of Khasra No. 116, which was adjacent to Khasra No. 127. It was alleged that in fact the petitioners were in possession of Khasra No. 127 and this land was purchased by the petitioners. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, while placing reliance on "Gurdeep Singh v. State of Haryana, 1998(3) Recent Criminal Reports 466" and "Sukhdev Singh v. State, 1999(1) Recent Criminal Reports 64" : [1998(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 13 (Pb. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, while placing reliance on "Gurdeep Singh v. State of Haryana, 1998(3) Recent Criminal Reports 466" and "Sukhdev Singh v. State, 1999(1) Recent Criminal Reports 64" : [1998(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 13 (Pb. & Hry.)], submitted before me that the complaint made by the petitioners and their father disclosed a cognizable offence and as such the police was required to register a case and to investigate the same in accordance with law. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, submitted before me that after enquiry no truth was found in the allegations made by the petitioners and as such the complaints were ordered to be filed. It was further submitted that the complainants were competent to approach the Judicial Magistrate by filing a criminal complaint under Section 190 read with Section 2000 Cr. P.C. and are not competent to file the present petition seeking a direction for the registration of a FIR. Reliance was placed on "All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union (Regd.) through its President v. Union of India, 1997(4) Recent Criminal Reports 594 : [1997(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 218 (SC)]" and "Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar 1997(3) Recent Criminal Reports 679 : [1997(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 679 (SC)]". 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, in my opinion, there is no force in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. As referred to above, the complainants and their father had filed complaints before the Senior Police officers, seeking registration of a FIR against the private respondents. As per the written reply, filed by D.S.P. Ajay Maluja, the matter was enquired into by the police and no truth was found with regard to the allegations made in those complaints/representations. 10. In 1997(4) Recent Criminal Reports 594 (supra), it was held by their Lordships of Supreme Court that when the information is lodged with the police but no action in that behalf was taken, the complainant is given power under Section 190 Cr.P.C. read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. to lay complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. It has been further held in the said authority that without following the above said procedure, the petitioner is not entitled to approach the High Court by filing a petition and seeking a direction to conduct investigation by the C.B.I. In 1997(3) Recent Criminal Reports 679 (supra), it was held by their Lordships of Supreme Court that when the complaint disclosing a cognizance offence is made before the Magistrate, he may taken cognizance upon the same under Section 190 (1)(a) Cr.P.C. and proceed with the same in accordance with the provision of Chapter XV. The other option available to a Magistrate in such a case is to send the complaint to the appropriate police station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. Once such a direction is given, the police is required to investigate into that complaint and on completion of the investigation to submit a police report, on which a Magistrate may take a cognizance under Section 190(1)(b). It was further held in the said authority that whenever a Magistrate directs an investigation on a complaint, the police is to register a cognizable case on that complaint, treating the same as the FIR. 11. In view of the law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the, above mentioned authorities, in my opinion, no case is made out for giving direction to the local police to register a FIR, on the facts of the present case. The authorities, 1998(3) Recent Criminal Reports 466 (supra) and 1999(1) Recent Criminal Reports 64 (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in my opinion, would have no application to the facts of the present case, in view of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in the above mentioned authorities. 12. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in this petition, the same is hereby dismissed. 13. However, the petitioners if so advised, would be competent to file a criminal complaint before the Magistrate, who shall deal with the same in accordance with law.