AMANDEEP KAUR SOFAT Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(P&H)-2014-1-478
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on January 08,2014

Amandeep Kaur Sofat Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to respondents No. 1 and 5 for conducting an enquiry into the fraud played by respondents No. 6 to 10 and solicitor Gurpal Singh, with the petitioner. It is stated that marriage of petitioner with respondent No. 6 -Amit Sofat was solemnized on 24.03.2011 as per Hindu Rites at Ludhiana. As per the demand of respondents No. 6 to 10, specific dowry articles, cash etc. were given to them.
(2.) THE petitioner went to Australia in August, 2011. From there the couple applied for residency visa for Canada, which was rejected. There are allegation of cruel treatment meted out to the petitioner by respondent No. 6, in Australia. Petitioner came to India in May, 2012 and filed a detailed complaint (Annexure P -3) against the private respondents, enquiry in which has been kept in abeyance due to pendency of CRM -M -36466 of 2012 filed by respondent No. 7. The petitioner, however, is still living abroad as she went back after filing the complaint (Annexure P -3).
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason calling for the indulgence of this Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. 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?;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.