Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a criminal writ petition filed seeking directions for an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) into a case of a forged and fabricated will, a Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar, J., dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was unable to provide a satisfactory response regarding approaching the Court directly instead of the jurisdictional Court concerned by filing an appropriate application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’). The Court also held that not only did the petitioner fail to indicate how he was victimised in the matter at hand, but he also made scandalous remarks regarding the integrity of the justice dispensation mechanism.
Background
The petitioner contended that the legal representatives of the deceased respondent-Maya Devi fabricated her will by affixing her forged thumb impressions under the aegis of an Advocate who also assisted the legal representatives in tampering with the Civil Court records.
Allegedly, based on the forged will, two civil suits were filed for possession and permanent injunction against the petitioner herein. In the suit for possession, the Civil Court proceeded against the petitioner ex parte as he failed to deposit the costs imposed on him. Aggrieved, he moved an application seeking quashing of the said ex parte order, but it was dismissed. Further, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking an opportunity to lead evidence to defend his case, but that too was dismissed.
Hence, the present petition.
The respondent contended that the petitioner did not avail alternate remedies available to him. Further, despite being given multiple opportunities, he failed to deposit the costs imposed on him. It was also duly noted by the High Court that the petitioner was engaging in dilatory tactics. Allegedly, the petitioner also made scandalous remarks against advocates, the Presiding Officer of the Civil Court, and three sitting Judges of the High Court.
Analysis
Upon perusal of the case record, the Court stated that there was no merit in the arguments put forth by the petitioner. Even though the jurisdictional Magistrate is well equipped to deal with such type of matters, the petitioner was not able to provide a satisfactory response regarding approaching the Court directly instead of the jurisdictional Court concerned by filing an appropriate application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.
In this regard, the Court referred to Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409, wherein the Supreme Court held that the Magistrate has been bestowed with all necessary powers to ensure proper investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, but discouraged the practice of approaching the High Court for redressal of grievances like non-registration of FIR or improper investigation.
Further, the Court noted that the petitioner made intemperate remarks and used contemptuous language against the Civil Judge as well as three Judges of the High Court. He also made grave allegations concerning tampering with the Court records by an advocate without anything to show for it. Thus, the Court held that not only had the petitioner failed to indicate how he was victimised in the matter at hand, but he also made scandalous remarks concerning the integrity of the justice dispensation mechanism. A perusal of the record clearly indicated that there was no justifiable cause on the basis of which scandalous and contemptuous allegations were levelled by the petitioner.
However, considering the petitioner’s lack of legal knowledge, the Court stated that contempt proceedings need not be initiated against him. Stating this, the Court cautioned the petitioner regarding his conduct and warned that the same would not be tolerated in the future.
Accordingly, the present petition was dismissed.
[Chandu Lal v. Smt. Maya Devi deceased through LRs, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2489, decided on 01-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Petitioner in person
For the respondent: Arnav Sood, Amicus Curiae
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
