Jagjiwan Kumar vs State of Haryana

S.C. Malte, J.

This writ petition is for seeking a direction from this Court to the police to register an F.I.R. against respondents 3, 4 and 5 and to carry out investigation. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the petitioner had earlier filed civil writ petition No. 4207 of 1995 against these very respondents and prayed for the same relief. That petition had been disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 22.3.1995 by passing the following order :

"Petitioner, if advised, may file a criminal complaint in the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabwali. With this observation, this writ petition is disposed of."

The counsel for the petitioner submit that he has not as yet filed a complaint in the Court. The counsel for the respondents brought attention to Annexure R3/3 which is a copy of the complaint filed by one Vinod Kumar against respondent 4 Ramesh Hooda and one Suraj Bhan. In that complaint also the subject matter pertains to the same incident in respect of which the petitioner now seeks relief in this petition.

The dispute between the parties had arisen in respect of the property. It appears that some arbitrator was also appointed. There seems to be some difference of opinion as to the correctness of the award given by the arbitrator. Presently, I am not concerned with that issue. The allegations are that on 14.8.1995 at the point of firearm, respondent 4 and one Suraj Bhan assaulted the petitioner and he was taken to the Police Station where he was illegally detained and assaulted. He was let off only on getting the assurance that he shall pay rupees four lacs. It is further alleged that on 30.8.1994 the said amount was paid by the petitioner to Krishan Sethi who in turn paid it to respondent 3. Petitioner claims to have approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police to ventilate his grievance, but to no avail. He had also submitted an application dated 2.9.1994 to the Superintendent of Police, but it also yielded no result. May it be, the incident in this case is an outcome of a dispute over the property. In such case an alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner is by filing a complaint in the appropriate Court. Such a view had already been expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in the writ petition filed by this very petitioner to which I have made a reference above. Besides that in Crl. Writ Petition 1166 of 1996 Dev Raj v. State of Punjab, decided on 20.11.1996, I have also made observation that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court need not be extended in those cases where the petitioner can be directed to adopt alternative efficacious remedy. I, therefore, find no substance in this petition. Hence it is dismissed.