IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-9794 of 2010 Date of decision : 1.4.2010 Rakesh Kumar Singla …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others …. Respondents Present: Mr. Yashpal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) for issuance of necessary directions to Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala (respondent No.2) and SHO, Police Station Division No.4, Patiala (respondent No.3) to take legal action on the application presented by the petitioner before respondents No.2 and 3 against respondent No.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has presented an application dated 26.3.2010 (Annexure P2) to SHO, Police Station Division No.4, Patiala (respondent No.3) regarding threats to kill the petitioner. A perusal of the said application shows that it has been alleged by the petitioner that there are civil litigations pending between him and respondent No.4 regarding a showroom. The petitioner has taken a showroom of respondent No.4 on rent. It is alleged that on 26.3.2010 (respondent Crl. Misc. No. M-9794 of 2010 [2] No.4) entered the shop of the petitioner and threatened his Engineer Amit Kumar and warned him that he should run away from the premises, otherwise his legs would be broken. The petitioner has other staff members and in their presence, it is alleged, respondent No.4 called the petitioner bad names and even threatened to kill him. It is alleged that respondent No.4 stated that if his son was there he would definitely kill the petitioner. While leaving respondent No.4 threatened that he would create such a situation which he would realize later on. Respondent No.4 then left the premises while giving threats and abusing the petitioner. It is submitted that no action is being taken on the said application (Annexure P2) even though an offence under Section 506 IPC is clearly made out. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter, however, I find no merit in the same. This Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is not to issue directions for registration of 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 the notice show that 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 CrPC. Therefore, if a person is aggrieved by the inaction of Police officials in not registering a FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 CrPC are to be adopted and followed. Crl. Misc. No. M-9794 of 2010 [3] In Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP and others, 2008 (1) RCR (Crl.) 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 CrPC, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC 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) CrPC before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC 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 CrPC 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 inaction on the part of the Police in not taking action on his application. In the facts and circumstances, no ground is made out for issuing directions for registration of FIR. In the circumstances, the petitioner if so advised, may avail his other remedies as available to him in accordance with law. The Crl. Misc. petition is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE April 1, 2010 amit