Judgment:
CRM M-4650 of 2014 [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM M-4650 of 2014 Date of Decision: February 19, 2014 Bhupender Singh …..Petitioner versus Prem Singh Malik …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI.
-.- Present:- Mr.S.K.Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
-.- M.M.S.BEDI, J.
(ORAL) Petitioner alleges that there has been violation of the agreement dated April 27, 2010.
He has filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.requesting the Court to refer the matter to the police for registration of the FIR,.
The trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances of this case and making an attempt to appreciate the nature of the dispute arrived at a conclusion that the circumstances do not warrant a strong case to invoke the discretionary power under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., however, in Gupta Sanjay 2014.02.20 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM M-4650 of 2014 [2].the interest of justice, the complaint has been treated as a complaint under Section 190 Cr.P.C.requiring the complainant/ petitioner to produce preliminary evidence.
Dissatisfied with the order of the Magistrate, the petitioner preferred a revision petition.
The revisional Court re-appreciating the circumstances arrived at a conclusion that a detailed speaking order has been passed by the trial Court refusing to exercise discretion under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.for registration of the FIR for investigation of the case as per the provisions of the Cr.P.C.Aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional Court, the petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of this case.
I do not find any infirmity in the order of the trial Court that the allegations levelled by the petitioner also constitute civil liability.
The objective satisfaction of the trial Court in not referring the matter to the police for registration of the case do not require any interference in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
The petitioner has been given an opportunity to substantiate and prove by preliminary evidence the circumstances that criminal offence has been committed by the respondent.
Instead of availing the said remedy, the petitioner wants the matter to be investigated through the police agency.
Gupta Sanjay 2014.02.20 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM M-4650 of 2014 [3].Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in view of prima facie observations of the Magistrate, the opinion has been expressed regarding liability being of civil nature.
This petition is disposed of with an observation that anything said by the trial Court in the order dated June 5, 2013 will not prejudice the rights of the petitioner in case he is able to produce prima facie evidence in accordance with the contents of the complaint regarding commission of criminal offence.
It will be open to the trial Court to summon the accused in accordance with procedure of law, independent of any observations made in the order.
February 19, 2014 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE Gupta Sanjay 2014.02.20 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh