-t? ^ " ^ IN THE fflGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR ^ WRIT PETITION N0. 2-^^$- /2005 PETITIONER Rajesh Tiwari, S/o Premshank^' Tiwari, aged 32 y&ars, R/o Nagdaone Colony, Talq»ara,Bilasfiur (C.O.) RESPONDENTS -VERSUS- 1. ^b^^ ^.-^ X. 3. Supermtendent ofPolice, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Station House Ofllcer, Police Stafion, Civit Lines P Qlice Statioa, Bilaspur, District 1B'iiaspnfitC^.) RMaprasad Yadav, S/o Rampher Yadav, aged 46 years, R/o Nagdaone Colony, Talapara, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF mDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT. ORDERS OR DIRECTION. (^ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. CHHATTISGARH Writ Petition No.2025 of 2005 E'!. Rajesh Tlwari - Versus - Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur & ors POST FOR ORDER ON ^<JUNE 2005 Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge OF JUDICATUIUE AT Rl Wrlt Pctitton 110.2028 of2008 R^jesh Titvari • Versus - Superintendent of Police, Bil^spur & ors Present: - Mr, Rajeev SlLrivastava, Advocate Mr. Simil Otwani, Paxicl Lawyer For the petitioner For respondent No. 1 & 2. Before Hoa*ble M».L.C. Bliadoo. J. ORDBR (Passed on __/^iJune, 2005) 1. The petitioner has preferrcd this writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitutiou of India praymg tbr issuance of wnt of maadamus directing respondent No<l-Supenntendent of PoMce, Bilaspur for rcgistermg the offence punishable under Sections 3^) & 453 ofthe Indian Penal Code against rcspondent No.3. 2. Brief facts leading to fitiTig of tfais petition, as mentioned in the petltion, are that the petitioner is ninmng a groceiy shop smce 1992 m thc prcmiscs situated at Nakdauixc Colony, Talapara, Bfla^pxir owncd by x1cspondcnt No,3, Thc pctitioner wa^ teiaant in the said prexnises at the xaonthly rent of Rs.600/-< However, respondent No.3 asked the petitioner to vacate the prexEdses by 31.3.2005 but in fhe moming of 17.3.2005 when fhe petitioner went to open his shop he was shocked to oee that ttie k>ck which was put by him on 16.3.2005 was found broken and the doors werc locked by another lock of respondent No.3. The petitioner requested respondent No.3 to open fhe lock but he rcfused to do so. The goods of fhe petitioner valumg Rs.80-90,000/- and funiiture valuing about Rs.20,000/- is iaside fhe shop. The actton of rcspondent No.3 falls within the pmview of robbeiy aad house trespass^ thereforc, he faad committed an offence punishable under Sectlons 380 & 453 ofthe Indiaa Penal Code. The petitioiier immcdiatcly lodgcd a written rcport bcforc rcspondcnt No-2- Station Housc OfiBccr, Policc Stetion-Civfl Liaic^, Bilasipxir but instead of registering the offence xinder the ekforexxientioxied sections, reepondent No,2, ehowiag favour to reepoadent No»3, regietered fhe offence punishable under Section 448 of Indian Ftenal Ccwde. Being aggrieved by the action ofrespondent No,2 fhe petitioner, as per provision ofSection l54(3) oftheCr.P.C^ senta registered report to respondent No.l but no action haa taken by respondexit No.l for directmg respondeiit No.2 to register fhe offence under Sections 380 8r. 453 ofthe IPC. 3. I have heard learaed couasel for the petitioner on admission of petition. 4. The petition of the petitioner is whoUy misconceived becausc Section 154(1) of the Cr.P.C^ envisages that Mevery infomiation relating to the commission qfa cognizdble offence, ifgiven orally to an offfcer'in-'charge of a pdlioe station, shatt be reducssd to wriiing by him or under his directian^ and be read over to the infmrMXfU; and every s?uch inforrmztian, whether given in writing or reduoed to zvriting as aforeBaidL shall be signedby theperson giving ii^ cmdthe subsianoe thereof shaJI be entered in a book io be kept by sztch officer in such form as the Stale Govermnent may prescribe in Ihis behalf". It is not fhe case of tbe petitioner tfaat respondent No,2 has not registercd the ioformation as given by hiai or he has not ^^s^^^^ @ recorded the mfonxiation verbatim given by fhe petitioner. In this case sub-section (3) of Section 154 of Cr.P.C, as prayed by the petitioner is not attracted, for the rcason tixat sub-section (3) is attracted only when aai officer-in-charge of a Police Station rcftise to rccord the jnformation rcferred to m sub-section (1). In fhis case, rcspondent No,2 tias recorded (he mfonnatlon verbatim givcn by thc pctitioncr, fhc only gricvan.cc of thc pctittoncr is that xrspondcnt No,2 ought to havc rcgistcrcd thc oflBsncc andcr Sectiona 380 & 453 of the IPC. The matter is still under ravestigatioxi and if fhe petitioner is not satisfied with fhe action of respondent No,2 fhen he is at Uberty to file a complaint before fhe Magistrate conceraed and request the Magistrate to forward fhe saxae uxider Sectioa 156 (3) ofthe Cr,P,C. to fhe concerxxed police station or he can file a private coxnplaint and raise his objection that on facts aa offence different finom what the Station House Of&cer has registered or fited the chaUan is made out and on diat the Magistrate wiU be entitled to take cognizance of the offeHce looking to fhe aHegations & facts of the complaint and mvest^ation papers. 5. Thercfore, ia my considered opinion the petitioner has not been abte to make out a case for issuance of dircction to respondent No.2 as praycd by thc pctifk^ncr, Thc provisions of Chaptcr XII of thc Codc show that detail aad claborate provisions havc beexi madc for sccuring fhat an invcstigation takcs placc rcgaxdiag an offence ofwhich iaformation has been glven and the saxae is done ia accordance with the provision of the Code. The inaaner and xaethod of conducting the investigation aie left entirely to the ofi&cer in chaiTge of the poHce station or a subordiaate ofiBcer deputed by hun. The formation of the opiaion whether tlxerc is ^ sufflcient or reasonabte groiuid of suspician to justify the forwardmg of fhe case to a magistrate or not as contemplated by Sections 169 aad 170 is to be that of the officer-in-charge of the police station and fhds Court is not entitled to issue directfon to respondents for registering a case under tfae particular offence. 6. In fhe result, for the aforcsaid reasons, the petitioii of petitioners dcscrvcs to bc dismisscd aiid accordiagly, it is disinissal, Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Roshan/-