IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-32744 of 2009 Date of decision : 12.1.2010 Ashwani Kumar …. Petitioner Versus Chief Judicial Magistrate Moga District Moga etc. …. Respondents Present: Mr. R.S. Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. The Crl. Misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) for issuance of direction to respondent No.1, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga District Moga to get a case registered against respondents No.2 to 5 in the concerned Police Station Moga for the offences under Sections 342, 420 and 120-B Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short). The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents No.2 to 5 in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC had obtained warrants of arrest by misrepresentation of the petitioner and got him illegally detained. Therefore, the petitioner was illegally detained in the Police Station and the said respondents No.2 to 5 had committed offences under Sections 342, 420 read with Section 120 –B IPC. It is submitted that respondents No.2 to 5 have played fraud with the Court as well as the petitioner by conspiring with each other to Crl. Misc. No. M-32744 of 2009 [2] receive the maintenance allowance when the maintenance had already been paid by the petitioner. In case the petitioner seeks registration of FIR, he has his remedies which he may pursue in accordance with law. 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 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 an 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-32744 of 2009 [3] 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 registering the FIR. The present is not a case which would warrant the issuance of directions by this Court for registration of a FIR. Besides, the petitioner is to establish whether the proceedings have been committed in relation to the proceedings in a Court and if so, the necessary modalities for the same are to be adopted. No ground is made out for issuance of directions by this Court in terms of Section 482 CrPC for registration of the FIR. Consequently, the Crl. Misc. petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to pursue his other remedies in accordance with law. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE January 12, 2010 amit