IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-6200 of 2010 Date of decision : 3.3.2010 Charanjit Kaur …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others …. Respondents Present: Mr. D.S. Gurna, 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 directing respondents No.1 to 3 for registration of FIR against respondents No.4 to 6 and their accomplices as petitioner’s written information (Annexure P2) sent to Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib (respondent No.2) discloses the commission of cognizable offences. The petitioner has submitted that she is the daughter of Mohinder Singh (respondent No.4) from his wife Smt. Kaki @ Surjit Kaur. However, said Mohinder Singh (respondent No.4) has transferred his agricultural land in favour of Ajaib Kaur (respondent No.5) and Gurjit Kaur (respondent No.6) by claiming them to be his wives. In fact it is submitted that the marriage of Mohinder Singh Crl. Misc. No. M-6200 of 2010 [2] (respondent No.4) with Gurjit Kaur (respondent No.6) is not legal as the marriage with Gurjit Kaur has been solemnized during the subsistence of marriage with Ajaib Kaur (respondent No.5). It is submitted that the marriage between Mohinder Singh (respondent No.4) and Ajaib Kaur (respondent No.5) was solemnized after the death of Smt. Kaki @ Surjit Kaur, the mother of the petitioner. However, the learned counsel is not aware of the death of Smt. Kaki @ Surjit Kaur nor the date of marriage of Mohinder Singh (respondent No.4) with Smt. Ajaib Kaur (respondent No.5). It is submitted that the transfer could not have been effected in pursuance of notification dated 3.11.2006 (Annexure P1) as the same requires mentioning of the pedigree table (sajra nasab) which has been incorrectly mentioned and the signatures of the petitioner on the same have been forged. Therefore, it is submitted that a criminal offence is made out. In this regard, the petitioner has made a complaint dated 28.8.2009 (Annexure P2) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib (respondent No.2). However, no action has been taken. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the grievance of the petitioner is that on the basis of allegations as contained in the complaint dated 28.8.2009 (Annexure P2), a cognizable offence is made out. However, FIR has not been registered. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-6200 of 2010 [3] has been made out. In case the Police officials had failed 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 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 her 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-6200 of 2010 [4] In the circumstances, the petitioner if so advised, may avail her other remedies as available to her in accordance with law. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 3, 2010 amit