R.P. Nagrath, J. - (1.) THE instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for seeking a direction to respondent No. 2 -Senior Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar, Mohali to decided the representation dated 23.9.2013 (Annexure P -1) and hand over investigation of the same to some senior police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, as respondents No. 5 and 6 have played a fraud upon the petitioner by way of cheating.
(2.) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased a plot measuring 6 -2/3 marlas, Khata No. 120/188 Khasra No. 4//13/2 (5 -16), 14 (6 -0), 16 (2 -12), 17 (8 -0) situated at village Chhaju Majra, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, from respondent No. 6 Harchand Singh who pretended himself to be the sole owner of the said plot, against the total sale consideration of Rs. 3 lacs in the year 2004, out of which Rs. 1 lack was paid as earnest money and rest of the amount of Rs. 2 lack was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. It is further contended that till date respondents Nos. 5 and 6 have not given the possession of the said plot to the petitioner because respondent No. 6 is not the sole owner of the plot and construction has been raised on the said plot by some other persons to whom respondents No. 5 and 6 have earlier sold the plot. It is further contended that respondents No. 5 and 6 have cheated the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 3 lacs and respondent No. 5 was instrumental in getting the deal struck with respondent No. 6. It is also contended that the petitioner has approached respondent No. 6 many times but he delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. It is further contended that respondents No. 5 and 6 in connivance with each other have defrauded the petitioner and taken Rs. 3 lacs from him by playing fraud. The petitioner has made representations dated 23.9.2013 (Annexures P -1 and P -2, respectively) in this regard to respondents No. 2 and 4 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.
(3.) HON 'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. And others : 2008 (2) SCC 409, 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: 26. 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 under Section 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 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies?;