V.M. Jain, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner, seeking a direction to respondents to register an FIR against the persons named in the complaint dated 20.8.1999 submitted by the petitioner before various Senior Officers.
2. In the petition, it was alleged that Jaswinder Singh brother of the petitioner, was having love affair with one Kiran Preet Kaur and about 8 days prior to the lodging of the complaint dated 20.8.1999, Annexure P-1,” said Jaswinder Singh and Kiran Preet Kaur ran away from the village to some unknown place and after great efforts they were found and thereafter Kiran Preet Kaur was restored to her parents. It was alleged that on account of the said incident, parents/relatives of Kiran Preet Kaur started harassing the petitioner, his brothers and other family members. !t was alleged that on 15.8.1999, Laddoo armed with a pistol alongwith others visited the tubewell of the petitioner and damaged the switch, starter and the motor resulting in damage to the paddy crop as the same could not be irrigated because of damage to the tubewell. It was alleged that again on 17.8.1999, various persons named in the complaint dated 20.8,1999, criminally trespassed into the house of the petitioner and damaged the household articles and television etc. and at that time Kuldeep Kaur and Jasbir Kaur, daughter and wife of Balkar Singh were present in the house. Itwasalieged that thereafter the persons named in the said complaint took away Kuldeep Kaur and Jasbir Kaur and were kept in illegal custody for 3 days and subsequently they were released from their illegal custody with the intervention of the respectable. It was alleged that the petitioner reported the matter to the SHO, but no action was taken, whereupon on 20.8.1999, the petitioner sent registered letters/complaints to various officers, copy Annexure PI, but no action was taken by the police. It was alleged that again on 30.8.1999, the accused persons armed with deadly weapons entered the flour mills of Balkar Singh, brother of the petitioner and took away with them electric motors and also damaged the flour mill as also the electric meter and also took away wheat flour which was lying in the flour mill. It was alleged that again on 26.9.1-999, various persons from the accused side trespassed into the house of the petitioner and fired two shots and threatened petitioners side. It was alleged that when no action was taken against the accused persons, petitioner filed Crl. M. No. 33755-M of 1999 and the same was disposed of on 23.12.1999 with a direction to SSP, Muktsar to take such action on the said complaint of the petitioner as is required. It was alleged that on 18.1.2000, the petitioner alongwith other respectables met the SSP Muktsar and produced a copy of the order dated 23.12.1999 passed by this Court and requested him to take action against the accused by registering an FIR, but the SSP referred the matter to the DSP (D), Muktsar. who recorded their statements on 27.1.2000 and even subsequently statements of various persons were recorded. It was alleged that on the basis of those statements, cognizable offence were made out against the accused persons but no action was taken by the police and no FIR was registered. It was accordingly prayed that necessary direction be given to police to register an FIR under Sections 365, 427, 430, 451, 452, 343, 506, 148, 149 IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act on the basis of the complaint Annexure P-l.
3. In the written reply, filed by Shri Paramveer Singh Parmar, DSP Malout on behalf of official respondents, it was alleged that petitioners and his close relatives had conspired to take away Kiran Preet Kaur and this fact came to the notice of her parents and their attempt failed. It was denied that Kiran Preet Kaur ever ran away from the village with Jaswinder Singh, as alleged. It was denied that parents and other relatives of Kiran Preet Kaur had ever harassed the petitioner or his other family members. It was alleged that complaint Annexure P-1 lodged by the petitioner was duly enquired into and it was found that the parents and relatives of Kiran Preet Kaur had never harassed the petitioner and his family members. It was alleged that entire version given by the petitioner in the petition was incorrect. It was further alleged that the enquiry was got conducted into the allegations made by the petitioner and the allegations were found to be false. It was alleged that even Surjan Singh. brother of the petitioner, during the course of enquiry had given an affidavit against the petitioner and even Kutdeep Kaur had given an affidavit that the accused side had never kidnapped her and had never threatened her. It was alleged that Kuldeep Kaur and Jasbir Kaur were never kept in illegal custody. It was alleged that on enquiry, it was found that no cognizable offence was made out. It was alleged that on receipt of the order dated 23.12.1999 passed by this Court, the matter was again looked into and it was found that no cognizable offence was made out in this case and hence the papers were ordered to be filed.
4. 1 have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefull.
5. In the present case the allegations made by the petitioner in the complaint, copy Annexure P-l were enquired into by the police and it was found that the allegations were false. Later on, on the directions given by this Court vide order dated 23.12.1999. the matter was again enquired into by the police and again it was found that the allegations made in the complaint, copy Annexure P-l were false. Hence the complaint was ordered to be tiled. While coming to the conclusion that the allegations made by the petitioner in the complaint, copy Annexure P-l were false, the police had also kept in view the affidavits of Surjan Singh and Kuldcep Kaur. close relatives of the petitioner. During enquiry, it was found that the allegations made by the petitioner were false. Under these circumstances, the complaint lodged by the petitioner was ordered to be filed.
6. In 1997 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 303, Ail India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and others, it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that when the information is laid with the police but no action is taken on that behalf, the complainant is empowered under Section 190 read with Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and to enquire into the matter. It was further held that without adopting the said procedure, the petitioner is not entitled to approach the High Court by filing apetition and seeking a direction to get the investigation conducted by the CB1.
7. For the reasons recorded above, in my opinion, no case is made out for issuing direction to the police to register a case against the persons mentioned in the complaint, copy Annexure P-l. However, if so advised, the petitioner would beat liberty to file a criminal beforethe Magistrate for the redressal of his grievance. If any such complaint is filed, the same shall be dealt with by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law. So far as the present petition is concerned, the same is dismissed.
8. Petition dismissed.