- (1.) Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 CrPC for issuance of direction to the Superintendent of Police, District Mohali to follow the procedure of Section 157(2)(1) CrPC. As per the averments made in this petition, petitioner is 65 years of age and a resident of Narayangarh Chungiya, Tehsil Derabassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. He is an agriculturist by profession and has four sons namely Sukhwinder Singh, Taljinder Singh, Balbinder Singh and Nirmal Singh. On 10.1.2016, when he was going for some work on his scooter, his son namely Taljinder Singh stopped him and started abusing him. Taljinder Singh was carrying sharp-edged stick. He firstly hit on the face and chest of the petitioner and when the petitioner opposed and tried to escape, Taljinder Singh threatened to kill him. He assaulted the petitioner with weapon. However, he somehow managed to escape and narrated the entire incident to his younger son namely Nirmal and his wife Rekha who reported the matter to the concerned police station on 10.1.2016 itself and filed a complaint, which is still pending. It has been further averred that earlier also, his other son Balbinder Singh had attacked him and threatened that they three brothers namely Sukhwinder, Taljinder and Baljinder have planned to kill the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed criminal complaint (Annexure P-1) before Superintendent of Police, Mohali, however, neither any action has been taken thereon nor any intimation regarding the same is being given to the petitioner despite his efforts.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. State of UP, 2013 4 RCR(Cri) 979, the police is duty bound to act on his complaint and inform him about the status of his complaint. Moreover, the provisions of Section 157(2) CrPC are also required to be followed by the police. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Chapter XII CrPC deals with information to the police and its powers to investigate and therefore, appropriate remedy is available to the petitioner under this Chapter. Section 157 CrPC reads as under:- "157. Procedure for investigation.- (1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender: Provided that (a) when information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature, the officer in charge of a police station need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot; (b) if it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case (2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1), the officer in charge of the police station shall state in his report his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements to that subsection, and, in the case mentioned in clause (b) of the said proviso, the officer shall also forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated."
(3.) Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP and others, 2008 1 RCR(Cri) 392 has held that the petitioner cannot straightway invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under the garb of Section 482 CrPC, especially when alternative remedy is available to him. The relevant observations made by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu read as under:- "24. In view of the abovementioned legal position, we are of the view that although Section 156(3) is very briefly worded, there is an implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of a criminal offence and /or to direct the officer in charge of the concerned police station to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the same. Even though these powers have not been expressly mentioned in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., we are of the opinion that they are implied in the above provision. 25. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly under Section 154(3) Section 36 Cr.P.C. before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3).";