VIPAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks direction from this Court to the police to register a case against respondent Nos. 5 to 10. This relief can be had in the Magistrate's Court itself. In such cases, the petitioner has a remedy to move the Magistrate under Section 156, Cr.P.C. The Magistrate would be in a position to appreciate facts as narrated in the complaint and would be in a position to consider whether order should be passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for a direction to the police register a case. For this proposition, I rely on the case of Madhu Bala v. Suresh, 1997(3) RCR 679 (SC) : 1997(3) R.C.C. 542 in which Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., a Magistrate can direct the police to register a case.

(2.) COUNSEL submits that he had approached the police but of no avail. If that be the case, on the basis of a complaint, the Magistrate would be in a position to himself undertake enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. In that case there would be further satisfaction to the petitioner that the statements of the witnesses and the evidence produced by him have been recorded faithfully.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner further submits that consequent upon a decree passed in his favour, he has already moved the civil Court under Order 21 Rule 32, C.P.C. and sought detention of respondents 5 to 10 in civil prison and/or attachment of their properties. That petition is pending for the last about 7 months or so. In the set of circumstances, a direction is hereby issued to the civil Court to adjudicate the petition moved under Order 21 Rule 32, C.P.C. by the petitioner, within one month from the date of receipt of this order. If for any reason adjournment has become necessary in that execution proceedings, the trial Court shall not adjourn the case beyond four days at a stretch.