Arvind Parbhakar vs State of Haryana and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The present petition has been filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of directions to the official respondents to take action against Vestige Marketing Private Limited, respondent No. 3 and to register an FIR on account of offence having been committed under the Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act as also other provisions of law. The issue as regards the intervention of this Court in such matters in exercise of jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. upon failure of the police official to register the FIR on the allegations that a cognizable offence has been committed came up for consideration before a coordinate Bench of this Court in Jaswinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & others, 2014 (1) RCR Cri. 569.

While declining to interfere in such matters in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C., it had been held in the following terms:

In view of the settled position of law laid down in Aleque Padamsee''s case (supra) and Sakiri Vasu''s case (supra), there is no reason for this Court to issue any such direction as prayed for, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code. The petitions are accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy, in accordance with law.

Before parting with this order, I would like to clarify that nothing stated in this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the allegations set up by the petitioners nor the Court has adverted itself to the issue, if the allegations do or do not constitute any cognizable offence having been committed.

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the light of observations made by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Jaswinder Kaur''s case (supra). Disposed of.