R.P. Nagrath, J. - (1.) THE instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for seeking a direction to respondent No. 3 -Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur to investigate the case on the basis of complaint/application dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure P -5) moved by the petitioner against respondents No. 4 to 13 or to register case against these respondents.
(2.) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has filed the accompanying petition on the ground that respondent No. 3 has failed to register case against respondents No. 4 to 13 and due to inaction on the part of respondents No. 2 and 3, life and liberty of the petitioner is being ruined and put to danger. It is further stated that the petitioner has an agricultural land in village Daggam, Police Station Garhshankar, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur. One Gurcharan Singh S/o. Pritam Singh of the same village who is presently residing at abroad and whose land is adjoining to the land of petitioner had leased out his land to respondent No. 8 -Harjinder Singh. In the month of May, 2013, the petitioner came to know from respondent No. 8 that he applied for an electricity connection on behalf of the abovesaid land owner i.e. Gurcharan Singh for electric motor for the fields and the petitioner also came to know that respondent No. 8 in connivance with the officials of Electricity Board are laying the electricity wire through the agricultural land of the petitioner by installing electricity pole in his land by leaving the suitable alternative way. It is further contended that the petitioner has approached respondents No. 6 and 7 as well as respondent No. 8 and requested them to act as per law by choosing the suitable alternative way for installing the electric connection for the motor of respondent No. 8. He also requested them to allow him to harvest the crop as he has spent a huge money for nourishing his crop but they refused to act upon the request of the petitioner rather they claimed that they will install electricity pole on his land and if he (petitioner) dared to stop them then they will teach him a lesson. It is further contended that the petitioner moved various applications in this regard to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, which are attached as Annexures P -1, P -2 and P -5 respectively but no action has so far been taken thereon. 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?;