AMRIK 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. 3 -Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur to investigate the case on the basis of complaint/application dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure P -5) moved by the petitioner against respondents No. 4 to 13 or to register case against these respondents.

(2.) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has filed the accompanying petition on the ground that respondent No. 3 has failed to register case against respondents No. 4 to 13 and due to inaction on the part of respondents No. 2 and 3, life and liberty of the petitioner is being ruined and put to danger. It is further stated that the petitioner has an agricultural land in village Daggam, Police Station Garhshankar, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur. One Gurcharan Singh S/o. Pritam Singh of the same village who is presently residing at abroad and whose land is adjoining to the land of petitioner had leased out his land to respondent No. 8 -Harjinder Singh. In the month of May, 2013, the petitioner came to know from respondent No. 8 that he applied for an electricity connection on behalf of the abovesaid land owner i.e. Gurcharan Singh for electric motor for the fields and the petitioner also came to know that respondent No. 8 in connivance with the officials of Electricity Board are laying the electricity wire through the agricultural land of the petitioner by installing electricity pole in his land by leaving the suitable alternative way. It is further contended that the petitioner has approached respondents No. 6 and 7 as well as respondent No. 8 and requested them to act as per law by choosing the suitable alternative way for installing the electric connection for the motor of respondent No. 8. He also requested them to allow him to harvest the crop as he has spent a huge money for nourishing his crop but they refused to act upon the request of the petitioner rather they claimed that they will install electricity pole on his land and if he (petitioner) dared to stop them then they will teach him a lesson. It is further contended that the petitioner moved various applications in this regard to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, which are attached as Annexures P -1, P -2 and P -5 respectively but no action has so far been taken thereon. 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: