ri,, ^' 6\2^^ ^^•^-%-- ^..^^^y s" .../•'•^•r^-1- ^^"^" ^ORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (C) N0 ^o^ ^ 2011 PETITIONER : Smt. Leelawati Chandel, W/o^Shri P.S. Chandel aged ^bout 70yeai^>R/o near, Sub-Post Office-: Kasardih, Durg, District? Durg(C.G.) ^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1) State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of Home, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2) The Superintendent of Police, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) —• WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA HIGH COURTQF QfflLATnSGARH ATBILASPUR PETmONER WMT PETmONfQNo. 3071 of2011 SmL Leelawati Chandel. RESPONDENTS VERSUS StateofChhattisgarh & Another. WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION Of INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Sattsh K. Aenihotol. J. Present: ShriP.R.Patanicar.Advocateffirthepetitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri and Slri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondents. ORDERfORAL) (Passed on 19"1 day ofJuly, 2011) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner suhmits Ifaat the petttiaier has made several eonylauitsto the police aufliwities in regardto suspicious death ofher mother but 1fae police authorities are not investigating the mattw. Thus, fte poMee auihoriti^ may be direeted to register the F.I.R. and investigate the matter. The Suprenie Court, in Sakiri Vasu v. State ofUJ>. sS: others , while eonsidering the situation wherein the police statitai or the Superiritendent of Police has failed to peifcum Ifaeir duties, observed as under: "II. In lius connection we would like to state that if a pers<Mi has a grievanee thaf the police statlon is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., tiien he ean approach tfae Superintendent of Poliee under Secfion 154(3) Cr.P.C., by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory resutt in the sease thateitfaer the FIR is still not i-egistered, or that even after registering it no propw investigaticm is held, it is open to'the ^gdeved person to file an applicatipn uuder Seetion 156(3) Cr.P.C., befwethe leamed Magistrate concemed. tf such an ^ application under Seetion l56(3) is filed before the M^istrate, Ifae Magistrate can direct tiie FIR to be registered and dso can direct a proper iavestigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under tfae same provisi(m momtor fhe investigatian to ensure aproper investigati(»i." — Admittedly, the petitioner has not taken recourse to tfae provisions ofsection 156(3) ofthe Cr.P.C. by mafcing an applieation to the Magistrate concemed for qppropriate action on the complaints of the petitioner. Thus, at this stage, it would not be proper to interfere with the matta- in exereise of writ jurisdiction when the proper and effective foruni of saaking an applieation/coniplamt before the magistrate under the provisions oftheCodeofCrinunal Procedure, is available. Wilhout expressing any opmion on ma-its ofthe case, the petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to fee petitioner to take appropriate steps as advised under Ihe provisions oflaw infhe light offhe legal propositions as laid down by the Supreme Court ia Sakiri Vasu (supra). ^,ft:" .:ISd^1'. ., ^ia|isb:K.Agnihotn; Judge