SANDEEP CHOPRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("CrPC" - for short) for directing respondents No.2 and 3 to register a FIR against respondent No.4 and to investigate the matter.

(2.) The petitioner and the respondent had a partnership firm i.e. a Brick-kiln. Initially the dispute arose between them which was compromised and the partnership was dissolved. Respondent No.4 in consequence of the dissolution of the partnership firm issued six cheques for an amount of 29,11,000/-. Five of the cheques were for an amount of 5,00,000/- each and one cheque was for an amount of 4,11,000/-. The petitioner presented two cheques in his bank for encashment and both were dishonoured and returned with the remarks "insufficient funds". A request was made to the respondent No.4 who stated that he would pay the money. On 16.2.2010 at about 9 "™O clock a call was received on the mobile phone of the petitioner from respondent No.4. He asked the petitioner to take the money and return the cheques. The petitioner reached the brick-kiln with two cheques and as soon as he took out the cheques from his pocket, respondent No.4 pointed his pistol on the head of the petitioner and snatched away the cheques and went away with his Honda City Car from the spot. While going, he (respondent No.4) said that if the petitioner informed the police about the matter, he would kill him and put all the bullets in his head. The petitioner gave a representation (Annexure P2) on 17.2.2010. It is submitted that respondent No.4 had forcibly snatched both the cheques from the petitioner so that the petitioner could not file a case against respondent No.4. The petitioner gave his representation to the SHO as well as to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra but no action has been taken. Therefore, it is submitted that a FIR be registered against the petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner cites State of Haryana and Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1991 1 RCR(Cri) 383, Kuldeep Singh v. State, 1994 2 RCR(Cri) 498, Narota Ram v. State,1995 1 AllIJ 517, M. Latchumanan v. Union Territory of Pondicherry and Others, 2005 3 RCR(Cri) 671 and Sushma v. State of Haryana and Others, 2005 4 RCR(Cri) 788.

(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter and with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner have perused the record. It may be noticed that this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is normally not to issue directions for registration of a FIR. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of Police officials in not registering a FIR, he has to avail his remedies in accordance with law.