RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Punjab appearing for respondents 1 to 4. Private respondents 5 to 7 are also represented by Shri Arun Sanghi, Advocate.

(2.) It may be pointed out that the allegations contained in the petition regarding the alleged occurrence having taken place in the canteen of the petitioner are highly disputed and contested whereas according to the contention of the petitioner, the private respondents accompanied by the official-respondents indulged in ransacking the canteen and obtaining signatures of the complainant-petitioner on blank papers and when the petitioner went to lodge a report, the same was not noted down and the petitioner was male-treated. On the other hand, the version contained in the reply filed by the respondents is that it was under the orders of the District Magistrate, Patiala, for eviction of the petitioner-complainant from the canteen aforesaid that the Police party be accompanied the Executive Magistrate and got the said canteen vacated by eviction of the petitioner. Be that as it may, in view of the highly contested facts, it will not be appropriate, just and proper to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, and for registration of the first Information Report, as it would be needed and required by this Court to go into all these disputed facts. This Court will not go into the disputed facts of the case.

(3.) In my considered view, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of approaching the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate by filing a private complaint, if so advised, under chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is relegated of his remedy, as indicated above, i.e., to file a criminal complaint if so advised, in the Court of the concerned Ilaqa Magistrate.