NEEL KAMAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 for registration of a case under Sections 406, 323, 420, 506, 379 read with Section 34 IPC against respondents No. 4 to 7, namely; Bhawna, Vikas Jately, Gita Jately and Jyoti Jately and further for taking necessary steps for ensuring safety of the petitioner and his family members on account of threats to their lives at the hands of respondents No. 4 to 7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the marriage of petitioner with respondent No. 4 -Bhawna was solemnized on 12.5.2013 at Jalandhar as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies. After four days of the marriage at about 3.30 p.m. respondent No. 4 fell on the earth and became unconscious. At that time, the petitioner was away to his job and his sister and father told this fact to him. Shakti Sharma, the sister of the petitioner also made a telephone call to the mother of respondent No. 4. After some days, respondent No. 4 started quarreling with the petitioner, his sister and his father and started throwing out utensils from the kitchen and use filthy language against them. The petitioner informed the mother of respondent No. 4 about her conduct. Thereafter, the mother and brother of respondent No. 4 came to their house and admitted that she is suffering from epilepsy and looses self -control and behaves abnormally with each and everyone. The petitioner subsequently had been providing best treatment to respondent No. 4 so that she could behave in a normal manner but she refused to take medicine and her problem aggravated. Subsequently, on 13.6.2013 at about 7.30 p.m. respondents No. 5 to 7 and one un -identified person came to the house of the petitioner. However, at that time only the sisters of the petitioner were present. Respondents No. 4 to 7 in the absence petitioner, took away 13 tolas of gold jewellery, clothes and other costly goods in two brief -cases. Thereafter, the petitioner made a complaint dated 13.6.2013 (Annexure P -1) to the police post Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana about the said incident. On the very next day, the petitioner went to the house of respondent No. 4 but she flatly refused to accompany him and further refused to return back all the articles which she had taken away in his absence. When no action was taken on the complaint of the petitioner, his father made a complaint dated 16.12.2013 (Annexure P -2) to the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana. The petitioner and his family are facing severe threats to their lives and liberty at the hands of respondents No. 4 to 7 who are harassing them and trying to falsely implicate them in a dowry case. Hence, the present petition.

(2.) 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: