JOGINDERPAL BEDI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to respondents No. 1 to 4 to take legal action on his representation dated 27.9.2013 (Annexure P-4) already made to respondent No. 2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a false declaration was filed by the respondent No. 5-Avtar Singh with the Electricity Department for obtaining connection by claiming that he is the owner of the properly which in fact is owned by the petitioner. The documents filed by this respondent with Electricity Department have also been relied upon by the petitioner. It is further contended that a civil litigation with regard to the property in question is pending consideration in Regular Second Appeal before this Court but in the said litigation respondent No. 5 is not a party.

(2.) After considering the facts of this case, I am of the considered view that various options are available to the petitioner to pursue his remedy of this nature. The offending documents relied by the petitioner seems to be of the year 2005.

(3.) 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: