In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-24016 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:6.1.2010 Gram Panchayat Ujha through its Sarpanch Shri Mange Ram .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. John Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This petition has been filed by the Gram Panchayat, Ujha for directing the Superintendent of Police, Panipat (respondent No.2) and Station House Officer, Police Station Chandni Bagh, District Panipat (respondent No.3) to register a FIR against Pawan Jangra (respondent No.4) and Rohtash Jangra alias Raju Jangra (respondent No.5) for commission of a cognizable offence of forcibly taking away sand without any permission or right from the land which was donated by the panchayat to the Housing Board for construction of houses. A further prayer has been made for directing the Superintendent of Police, Panipat (respondent No.2) to initiate departmental action against SHO, Police Station Chandni Bagh (respondent No.3) for letting Pawan Jangra and Rohtash Jangra alias Raju Jangra (respondents No.4 and 5) and others who have committed a serious crime of forcibly removing sand from the land of Housing Board, Haryana without any right or permission. Cr. Misc. No.M-24016/2008 [2] It is alleged that the Gram Panchayat donated 30 acres of land in the year 1995 to the Housing Board for constructing a colony but till date the Housing Board has done nothing. Respondents No.4 and 5, it is alleged, started removing sand from the above said land and sold the same. The petitioner had been approaching the Police, however, it has not taken any action. On notice of motion, reply has been filed by the Superintendent of Police, Panipat on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. It is stated that the petitioner has not moved an application before the SHO, Police Station Chandni Bagh (respondent No.3) on 21.2.2008 as alleged. It is further submitted that a false annexure has been prepared and attached by the petitioner to approach this Court. Besides, no reminder was submitted made by the petitioner on 25.4.2008 before the Superintendent of Police as alleged. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the primary grievance of the petitioner is for registration of a FIR against respondents No.4 and 5. This Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is not normally issue directions for registration of a FIR. In Aleque Padamsee and others v. Union of India and others, (2007) 6 SCC 171 (SC) it was observed that the correct position in law is that the Police officials are to register a FIR whenever the facts brought to their notice show that a cognizable offence has been made out. In case the Police officials fail to do so, the modalities to be adopted are set out in Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. Therefore, if a person is aggrieved by the inaction of the Police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C are to be Cr. Misc. No.M-24016/2008 [3] adopted and followed. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (1) RCR (Cr.) 392 (SC) it was observed by the Supreme Court that if a person has a grievance that the Police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not lead to any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is not registered or even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file such application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and can also direct proper investigation to be made in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. However, a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for directing the registration of a FIR is to be done only in some rare and some exceptional cases. In the present case, the petitioner has his remedy of approaching the Magistrate in case there is any inaction on the part of the Police in not registering the FIR. The present is not a case which would warrant the issuance of directions by this Court for registration of a FIR. As has already been noticed, the Superintendent of Police has denied that any application was made to the SHO, Police Station Chandni Bagh (respondent No.3). Nothing has been shown by the petitioner to substantiate the stand that the application (Annexure-P.1) and complaint (Annexure-P.2) were indeed submitted. In the circumstances, the petitioner may, if so advised, in the Cr. Misc. No.M-24016/2008 [4] first instance approach the SHO, Police Station Chandni Bagh (respondent No.3) and in case thereafter a FIR is not registered he can avail his remedy by filing an application before the Superintendent of Police under Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C. In case the same also does not lead to any result, the petitioner has his remedy of approaching the learned area Magistrate in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. However, no direction in exercise of inherent jurisdiction are liable to be issued. In view of the above, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. January 6, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*