Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011561
CRM M-58284-2023 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM M-58284 of 2023
Date of Decision: 27.01.2025
Suresh Kumar ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others … Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT
Present : Mr. Suresh Kumar, petitioner in person.
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Banku, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta, Advocate
as Amicus Curiae.
N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner had filed the present petition under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to direct the respondent No. 2 to register
the FIR in the present case against the private respondents, which
includes two advocates and four judicial officers posted at different
stations, as the private respondents had grabbed the public property in
collusion with each other by misusing their positions in the judiciary.
It was further prayed that the directions may be issued to hand over
the matter to CBI or to some senior judicial officer in the present case.
2. During the course of arguments, the petitioner, who
claims to be a practicing lawyer and a member of Bar Association of
1 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 03-02-2025 23:44:11 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011561
CRM M-58284-2023 2
Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, appeared in person and
stated that he did not wish to argue the case and his written
submissions may be considered as his arguments. Since from the
record, it is apparent that the petitioner was seeking adjournment in
the present case on the one pretext or the other, this Court had
appointed Mr. Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta, Advocate as Amicus Curiae
to assist the Court.
3. In the petition/written submissions, it has been mentioned
that respondents No. 3 and 4 (Advocates at District Court, Kaithal)
and respondents No. 9 to 12 had registered a fake society, i.e., MMV
Samiti, Indira Gandhi College, Kaithal to grab the public property and
their family members were also the members of these fake societies.
The respondents No. 5 to 8, who are senior judicial officers in
Haryana, were given money and as a result, these judicial officers had
decided the cases of other private respondents in less than 06 months.
Whereas, the cases which were filed against the private respondents
were pending since long time. The petitioner had made complaint
against the judicial officers, when they were posted at Kaithal. Even,
the complaints were moved to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana
against the respondents No. 3 and 4, but the members of the Bar
Council of Punjab and Haryana were also working on the instructions
of respondents No. 3 and 4, 9 to 12. The petitioner filed a complaint
before the Magistrate, but the officer refused to take action against the
2 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 03-02-2025 23:44:12 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011561
CRM M-58284-2023 3
private respondents and asked the petitioner to approach the High
Court. The respondents No. 3 and 4, 9 to 12 had claimed that they
had links with the Hon’ble Judges of Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh. Some times, due to pressure, the petitioner had to
withdraw the power of attorney from many cases.
4. It has been further mentioned in the petition that it is not
possible to get the matter investigated from the police and may be
handed over to the CBI as the relative of private respondents was a
DGP, in Orissa. In case any judicial officer at Kaithal passed any
order against respondents No. 3 and 4, 9 to 12, the respondents would
call certain advocates and pressurize the judicial officer. Some
judicial officers in District Court Kaithal were already working on the
instructions of private respondents. Further, the respondents No. 3 and
4, 9 to 12 were involved in a case of POSCO Act and the victim in the
said case was murdered under suspicious circumstances. Even, some
proofs from the case file were destroyed in collusion with Mr. J.B.
Goel, ADA, also. Still further, in many POSCO matters, the FIRs
were not registered and the respondents were destroying the evidence.
He further moved complaints against private respondents, but no
action was taken on his complaint. Still further, the petitioner is a
whistle blower and had raised many issues against the corruption and
suo moto action may be taken as per the circumstances. In the written
submissions, several other submissions have also been made, which
3 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 03-02-2025 23:44:12 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011561
CRM M-58284-2023 4
were not mentioned in the main petition. It was stated that the
petitioner had filed a criminal complaint against respondents No. 3, 4
and 11 and few other persons and the same was pending in the Court
of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kaithal. The petitioner moved an
application for summoning the record and the same was allowed.
However, the Court did not proceed as per law. The petitioner again
and again prayed for summoning the records, but the Court did not
issue summons. The petitioner also moved a transfer application and
the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kaithal, submitted its
comments. The CJM transferred the case of the petitioner. The
petitioner moved an application to preserve the CCTV footage to
prove the facts mentioned about the witness, but the application was
found to be false. It is also mentioned that in case any single
allegation found to be false and baseless, the petitioner may be tried
under the Contempt of Court Act and other proceedings may be
initiated against him.
5. I have heard the petitioner as well as learned Amicus
Curiae at length in the present case.
6. The main prayer in the present petition is to direct the
respondent No. 2 to register the FIR in the present case as the private
respondents in collusion with each other had grabbed public property.
Before proceeding to examine the pleas raised by the petitioner on
merits, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petition is
4 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 03-02-2025 23:44:12 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011561
CRM M-58284-2023 5
completely misconceived and is not at all maintainable before this
Court.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has already
examined the issue of maintainability of the writ petition or a petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of registration of the FIR,
when so many alternative remedies are already available in the
statute. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of Sakiri
Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008 AIR Supreme Court 907 as
under:-
“25. We have elaborated on the above matter because
we often find that when someone has a grievance that his
FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a
proper investigation is not being done by the police, he
rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion
that the High Court should not encourage this practice
and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters,
and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy,
firstly under Section 154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C.
before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no
avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate under
Section 156(3).
26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been
registered by the police station his first remedy is to
approach the Superintendent of Police under Section
154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in
Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the
Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in
5 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 03-02-2025 23:44:12 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011561
CRM M-58284-2023 6
Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can
approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ
petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal
complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should
writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained
when there are so many alternative remedies?
27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate
has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR
and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this
purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that
the investigation is done properly (though he cannot
investigate himself). The High Court should discourage
the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a
grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the
police, or after being registered, proper investigation has
not been done by the police. For this grievance, the
remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the
concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail,
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by
filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
28. 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”.
6 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 03-02-2025 23:44:12 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011561
CRM M-58284-2023 7
8. In view of the settled law itself, the present petition is not
maintainable at all before this Court and is liable to be dismissed.
Now this Court would advert to the averments made in the petition as
well as the written submissions by the petitioner and apparently the
submissions are not only scandalous and baseless but contemptuous
also. The petitioner has made a vague averment that the private
respondents, which includes two advocates and four judicial officers,
had grabbed the public property in collusion with each other, by
misusing their official position in the judiciary. However, in the entire
petition, the petitioner has failed to mention even a single property.
Still further, the petitioner has alleged that the respondents No. 5 to 8
had decided the cases of other private respondents in an expeditious
manner. However, again the details are not forthcoming and vague
and unfounded allegations were levelled against four judicial officers.
Still further, it has been falsely alleged that the even members of the
Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana were acting at the dictates of
respondents No. 3 and 4, i.e., two lawyers practicing at Kaithal.
Again, the allegation has been levelled without mentioning any
detailed particulars and seems to be aimed at maligning the members
of the Bar Council. Apart from that, it has been falsely alleged that
the appellant had not investigated the matter as Yogesh Khurania,
relative of private respondent was posted as DGP of State of Orissa.
However, the said Yogesh Khurania, has not been impleaded as a
7 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 03-02-2025 23:44:12 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011561
CRM M-58284-2023 8
party in the present case. Still further, it has not been shown as to
which private respondent, he is related. It has been further stated that
in case any judicial officer passed any order against the respondents
No. 3 and 4, 9 to 12, then they would call other advocates and would
pressurize the judicial officers. Again, no such details have been
mentioned and the allegation on the face of it is highly unbelievable.
Still further, several other sensational and baseless allegations have
been levelled with regard to the registration of criminal
cases/complaints under the provisions of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act against respondents No. 3 and 4, 9 to 12.
Further, it is apparent from the bare perusal of the averments made in
the petition, the petitioner has made veiled, intemperate and frivolous
allegations against several judicial officers. The tendency of malign
the reputation of the judicial officer by the disgruntled elements, who
failed to secure an order which they desire is on the increase and it is
high time that serious note is taken of the same. No litigant can be
given the permission to browbeat the Court. Merely because the
petitioner has chosen to appear in person, it does not give him a
licence to indulge in making such aspersions as he has the tendency to
scandalize the Court in relation to judicial matters. The present
petitioner had attempted an arrogant and contemptuous attitude, but of
course, the dignity of the Court is not so brittle as to shatter by a stone
thrown by a mad man. This Court has no hesitation to conclude that
8 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 03-02-2025 23:44:12 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011561
CRM M-58284-2023 9
the present petitioner has been regular, persistent and guilty of
undermining the dignity of the Court and his action is motivated,
deliberate and designed.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ajay
Kumar Pandey Vs. unknown reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court
3299 has held that any threat of filing complaint against the Judge in
respect of judicial proceedings conducted amounts to an attempt to
interference in the due course of administration of justice and held as
follows:-
"16. At the outset, we wish to emphasise that this Court
being the Supreme Court of the country, has not only the
right to protect itself from being scandalised or
denigrated but it also has the right, jurisdiction and the
obligation to protect the High Courts and the
Subordinate Courts in the country from being insulted,
abused or in any other way denigrated. Any action on
the part of a litigant-be he a lawyer appearing in person
- which has the tendency to interfere with; or obstruct
the due course of justice has to be dealt with sternly and
firmly to uphold the majesty of law. No one can be
permitted till intimidate or terrorise Judges by making
scandalous unwarranted and baseless imputations
against them in the discharge of their judicial functions
so as to secure orders which the 'litigant 'wants'.
17. The subordinate judiciary forms the very backbone of
administration of justice. This Court would come down
with a heavy hand for preventing the Judges of the
9 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 03-02-2025 23:44:12 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011561
CRM M-58284-2023 10
subordinate judiciary of the High Court from being
subjected to scurrilous and indecent attacks, which
scandalise or have the tendency to scandalise, or lower
or have the tendency to lower the authority of any Court
as also all such actions which interfere or tend to
interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings
or obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of
justice in any other manner. No affront to the majesty of
law can be permitted. The fountain of justice cannot be
allowed to be polluted by disgruntled litigants. The
protection is necessary for the Courts to enable them to
discharge their judicial functions without fear.
18. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic
society. The judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law
and if the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions
effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they
are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the
Courts has to be respected and protected at all costs. It
is for this reason that the Courts are entrusted with the
extraordinary power of punishing those for contempt of
Court who indulge in acts whether inside or outside the
Courts, which tend to undermine the authority of the
Courts and bring them in disrepute and disrespect
thereby obstructing them from discharging their judicial
duties without fear or favour. This power is exercised by
the Courts not to vindicate the dignity and honour of any
individual Judge who is personally attacked or
scandalised but with a view to uphold the majesty of law
and the administration of justice. The foundation of the
judiciary is the trust and the confidence of the people in
its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice and as
10 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 03-02-2025 23:44:12 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011561
CRM M-58284-2023 11
such no action can be permitted which may shake the
very foundation itself”.
10. In view of the above discussion, the averments and
language used by the petitioner in the present case scandalize the
Court, interfere in the administration of justice and are apparently
contempt of Court. However, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to
initiate contempt of Court proceedings against the present petitioner
with the hope that the petitioner will conduct himself in future as a
disciplined member of the legal fraternity and shall cause no
embarrassment to anyone. He is still warned not to file such frivolous
petitions before any Court of law and the present petition is ordered to
be dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-, which shall be deposited by
him with the PGI Poor Patient Welfare Fund, Chandigarh.
11. In case the amount of fine is not deposited by the
petitioner within a period of 02 months from today, the amount of fine
shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
12. In the end, this Court records deep appreciation for
Shri Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta, learned Amicus Curiae, who had
rendered able assistance to this Court.
27.01.2025 (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
11 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 03-02-2025 23:44:12 :::
