BALJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for seeking a direction to respondent No. 2 -Senior Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar, Mohali to decided the representation dated 23.9.2013 (Annexure P -1) and hand over investigation of the same to some senior police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, as respondents No. 5 and 6 have played a fraud upon the petitioner by way of cheating.

(2.) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased a plot measuring 6 -2/3 marlas, Khata No. 120/188 Khasra No. 4//13/2 (5 -16), 14 (6 -0), 16 (2 -12), 17 (8 -0) situated at village Chhaju Majra, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, from respondent No. 6 Harchand Singh who pretended himself to be the sole owner of the said plot, against the total sale consideration of Rs. 3 lacs in the year 2004, out of which Rs. 1 lack was paid as earnest money and rest of the amount of Rs. 2 lack was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. It is further contended that till date respondents Nos. 5 and 6 have not given the possession of the said plot to the petitioner because respondent No. 6 is not the sole owner of the plot and construction has been raised on the said plot by some other persons to whom respondents No. 5 and 6 have earlier sold the plot. It is further contended that respondents No. 5 and 6 have cheated the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 3 lacs and respondent No. 5 was instrumental in getting the deal struck with respondent No. 6. It is also contended that the petitioner has approached respondent No. 6 many times but he delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. It is further contended that respondents No. 5 and 6 in connivance with each other have defrauded the petitioner and taken Rs. 3 lacs from him by playing fraud. The petitioner has made representations dated 23.9.2013 (Annexures P -1 and P -2, respectively) in this regard to respondents No. 2 and 4 but no action has been taken thereon so far. Hence the present petition.

(3.) HON 'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. 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: