ct < (^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) C^-3 W.P.ftg) No. ^/..^^ 72010 PETITIONER Vijay Ahire S/o- Late Bandu Ahire, aged about 36 years, occupation- constable in 31 Battalion, B.S.F. Mulla camp, Bhanupratappur, District- Kanker (C.G.) RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. » r^° -<^ . ^ - ^"^ ^y^ ^y ^.^' "<^- ^ ^ ^wls^., ^"^. S.i,^^»)®l 'l^^^^^y" State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Home, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Superintendent of Police, Kanker, District- Kanker (C.G.) 3. Station House Officer, Potice Station Bhanupratappur, District- Kanker (C.G.) 4. Yogendra Kumar Puniya, Assistant Commander, 31 Battalion, B.S.F. Mulla camp, Bhanupratappur, District- Kanker (C.G.) 5. Radheshayam, Inspector, 31 Battalion, B.S.F. Mulla camp, Bhanupratappur, District- Kanker (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE & OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^ XI-HC—78 37T^T^Tf^thF Wff 3^1 sb^Jeh T *11Hdl «»*ll<st» ^cf ^|q|(r<q, ^tll^^Ko/f^€rll^^< ^.M.f...a.-.).. .r..2..^^ 3TI^?I TT^7 ( ^I^^) yRnW?rf^"cT 3^?T SB : Hon'ble Shn IVIanjndra M4han Shrivastavs, J. 09-06-2010 cdunsel Shri Shaitendra Bajpai, Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Adc|itbnal Heard, Petitioner-VJjay Ahire has jfiled to the respondent authorities respondents No.4 & 5 under Caste/Scheduted Tribe (Prevent^n this petition for issuance of a direction po register a criminaj case against the Ithe Indian Pena! Code and Scheduled of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Learned counset for th^ respondent Police authority is ar^itrary taking undue advantage of thei] made against them. He further s|Libmits Police authorities have submitted saying that the offence is a petitioner to approach the-cor|ipetent petitioner therefore prays for a d| to take necessary action against| In Vasv vs. Court Csses 4Q9, the Apex CoLJrt 2S« If a person has registered by the po| approach the Superintejndent CrPC or other police despite approachlng t| <=ni^f<vl<fll "RFT^it ^ 'feT^ <R>1<^1< ^ 3tRm CT^T for the petitioner. Advocate General for the Stafe. h^ petitioner submits that action of the jn nature because higher officers by position tried to influence the compta?nt sJLibmits that on 07-05-2010, the respondent a report under Seotbn 155 CrP.C. lion-oognjzabie offence and advised the Court Learned counsel for the |''eotion to the respondent Poiice authorities |the respondents No. 4 & 5. of Uttar Pradesh, (2003) 2 heid vide paras 26, 27 & 28 as foiiows: ^ grjevance that hls FIR has not been |lce station his first remedy Is to of Police under Section 154(3) referred to In Sectson 36 CrPC. If ie Superlntendent of Pollce or the offlcer sn^T^TRt'iich WT ^H^T »i*iw <.'• .''/ ^ ^' T^T ^i^Krt^ ^Til^^Ko, [®<cni<H^< ^l.(&rl'M.:^wl.^.1^ *<1*1^1<RW ^IT^T TR^FT ( yii^^) ^> ^RTTW^rf^^TI^T ^-.^^- officer referred to In Sectlon then he can approach a Ma^ CrPC instead of rushlng to th^ petltlon or a petltion under has a further remedy of Sectlon 200 CrPC. Why then ^ 482 petitlons be entertalne^ alternatlve remedies? |36 hls grlevance stlll persists, jlstrate under Section 156(3) Hlgh Court by way pf a writ S^ctlon 482 CrPC. Moreover, he a crlmlna! complalnt under jhould wrlf petitlons or Section when there are so many flllnb SectlQn 27. As we have aiready o| has very wide powers to dlrecjt ensure a proper investjgatlon| monitor the Investigatlon to done properly (though he ca< High Court shoulddiscourag^ petltlon or petltion under person has a grievance that h| by the pollce, or after belng has not been done by the remedy lles under Sections 3^ offlcers concerned, and if thal 156(3) CrPC before the Magi| complaint under Section 200 petitlon or a petition under Se4 28. It Istrue that alternatl bar to a writ petltlon, but it there is an alternatlve remecjy ordlnarily interfere. tn view of the above discussionj writ petition for issuanoe of a directio^ register a crjminal case or to irivestigat^ The writ petition, therefore, is liable summarily. However, the petitioner sh^II appropriate remedies in accordance witt" cM<<fa<fli "W^ff ^f f5^S <Pn^i< ^3?rRlH3TJ^T ^served above, the Maglstrate registratlon of an FIR and to and for this purpose he can ehsure that the Investlgation is |not jnvestlgate himself). The the practice of fiiing a writ 482 CrPC simply because a |s FIR has nof been regjstered r^glstered, proper Investlgatlon (^olice. For this grievance, the and 154(3) before the police Is of no avaii, under Section }|strate or by fllfng a crlmfnai |CrPC and not by flling a vvrit Itlon 482 CrPC. |ve remedy is not an absoiute |is equally well settied that If the Hlgh Court should not 1 am not jnctined to entertain this to the Police authorities either to the matter in a partioular manner. b be dismissed and is dismissed be attiberty to avait the other taw. ^T^lt^ —FS/i47—2/2010 -1,00,000. :^+ ^' 1;'M^%—:••...... \^ [v&^. . \ ;'l's v:/i "s^ T^ww<i, ^^wi<c, [si(ni<-f^< VJ ,^> ^rA, 2^^^o 'WR^ITW?NR""""""" """"""""^"""^200 ^TI^?! T5RFT (^q{^q<^f) ^H^T^T (<^Jcb 'CTT^n^TsFqN? Tumane 'F^TTW^rf^y 3TI^T With the above observation/d disposed of at the motion stage applicatjons, pending if any, atsostand cM<<?<vl<i1<l TTR^if ^ 'fex^t <F'l'^K ^3tRm^?r rection, the petition stands finaliy itself; Consequently, intertocutory Idisposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^mf^r ^NN-^n^^, ?^<F{t^- —-FS/S47--2/2010-1,00,000.