<0 fc HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH •.BILASPUR PETITIONER WRiT PETIT10N N0.1654 OF 2066 Mohd. Anish Memon, S/o Late Shri Abdu! Aziz Memon, aged about years, resident of Old Basti, Korba, P.S. Gity Kotwali, District Korba (CG). 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). 2. The Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh, Pplfce Headquarter, Raipur, Distrtet Raipur (CG). 3. The Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (CG). 4. The Superintendentof Police, Korba, District Korba(CG). 5. Shri Vedvrat Sirmaur, presently working as CSP, Korba Town, City Kotwali, Korba, District Korba (CG). QA/rit petitionunder Article 226/227 ofthe ConstitutionQflndia) iingle Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K.Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Anand Dadariya, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vjnay Harit, Dy. Advocate General forthe State. ShriC.K.Yadav,counselfortherespondentNo.5. (Passed on thisS day of Novenber, 2C08) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.5, who is working as City Superintendent of Police, Korba Tcwn, City Kotwali, Korba; is unnecessarily harassing the petitioner as well as his famity members. The respondent No.5 is also making allefforts to register false cases against the petitioner, visiting the service premises of the petitioner and raising iltegal demand from him. For the aforesaid itiegal acts of the respondents No.5, the petitioner made several reports before the Police Authorities, but they have not taken any action on the reports of the AP^ m -L^- t petitloner. Thus, the Police Officers are not taking any interest in the matter and not proceeding with the reports ofthe petitioner. 2) In this regard, law is very clear. If the Police Station is not recording the information as referred in sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the Code of Criminai Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.P.C."), complaint can be made to the Superintendent of Police of the District concemed. Even if the Superintendent of Police fails to take any action, the complainant can take recourse to provision of Section 190 read with Section 200 ofthe C.r.P.C. 3) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of indis and others hetd that "if any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the poiice officials in reglstering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed." 4) In the matter of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others^, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "11 ....we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C., by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense thateither the FiR is stiil not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is heid, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate concemed. If such an application under Section 156 (3) is fited before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation. !(2007)6SCC171 •' (2008) 2 SCC 409 'iff, BSS ^'^^.Se^'" v t^ Gowri 17. In our opinion Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper invesfigation, and it inciudes the power to order registration of an F.1.R. and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the poiice. Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., though briefiy worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation." 5) !n the matter of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradeshand others , also the Hon'bte Supreme Court reiterates the aforesaid view. 6) Sufficient safeguards are given in fhe Cr.P.C., therefore, if any, grievance exists the petitioner may approach firstiy, the Superintendent of Poiice of the District conc^rned and; thereafter, to the Court of Judteial Magistrate under the provisions of Section 190 read with Sections 200 to 203 or other provisions of the Cr.P.C. 7) For the foregoing reasons, the petition stands disposed of. 8) Consequently, M.(W.).P.No.822/2006 also stands disposed of. Sdt- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge (2008) 7 SCC 164