IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-1751 of 2010 Date of decision : 20.1.2010 Kanhaiya Lal …. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others …. Respondents Present: Mr. N.L. Sammi, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) has been filed for directing Superintendent of Police, Kaithal (respondent No.2) and the Incharge, Police Post Ramthali, District Kaithal (respondent No.3) to protect the life and property of the petitioner and his family members who are in possession of land since 40 years and have constructed their pucca houses. A further prayer has been made not to harass the petitioner and his family members at the instance of Pawan Kumar and Gullu Ram (respondents No.4 and 5) and/or their associates. It is alleged that the petitioner is in cultivating possession of his land in village Kharkhan for the last more than 40 years. However, he is sought to be dispossessed by respondents No.4 and 5 in collusion with the Police. The petitioner has also submitted an application dated 17.9.2009 (Annexure P1) for registration of FIR against respondents No.4 and 5 along with 10-12 un-identified Crl. Misc. No. M-1751 of 2010 [2] persons for taking forcible possession of the land and for threatening the petitioner and his family members, but no action has been taken on the said application. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that in case the petitioner claims himself to be in possession of land and there is a threat of his being dispossessed, the proper remedy is to file a suit for permanent injunction. This Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is not to embark upon an inquiry to determine as to who is in possession of the land. Insofar as the registration of FIR in terms of the application (Annexure P1) is concerned, it may be noticed that the proper remedies in such a case which are to be adopted are set out in Section 156 (3) CrPC or Section 190 read with Section 120 CrPC. 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. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-1751 of 2010 [3] 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. Therefore, the petitioner may avail his remedies in accordance with law and no interference of this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is warranted. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE January 20, 2010 amit