IGH COURT OF CHHATT!SGARH : BILASPUR WRH PETITION (C) N0. 5503 OF 2006 (Writ petition under Article 2261227 of the ConStitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon’bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Uttarn Pandey, couneei for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. _ . , ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 18‘“ day of November. 2008) With the consent of teamed counse! appearing for the parties, thepetition is heard iinatiy. 2) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that inspite of compiaints made by the petitioner, who is a practicing lawyer, against the illegal & fraudulent action of the respondents No.3 & 4, the Police authorities have not taken any action. Thus, the Police Officers are not taking any interest in the matter and not proceeding with the complaint of the petitioner. 3) ln this regard, law is very clear. lf the Police Station is not recording the information as referred in sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the Code of Criminat Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”), complaint can be made to the Superintendent of Police of the District PETITIONER Pradeep Tiwari (Advocate), about 29 S.L. Tiwari; aged years, Near Krishi District Court Raipur, R/o Near ' Upaj Mandi, Raipur (CG). Versus REsPONDENTs 1. State of Chhattisgarh, P.S. Go! Bazar, Raipur(CG). 2‘ The Superintendent of PoHce, Raipur (CG). 3. Shri Shivesh Singh (Advocate), Slo Rlo Not Known, aged about 40 years, Polsai Para, Near Laxmi Narayan Mandir, Durg (CG). Shri Raj Kishore Stngh, Slo Vasudev Kabir Singh, aged 52 years, R10 Chowk, Jute Mitt Road, Raigarh (CG). concerned. Even if the Superintendent of Police fails to take any. aetion, the comptainant can take recourse to provision of Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Aieque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of lndia and others‘ heid that “if anyt person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police ofticiais in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed.” ln the matter of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and othersz. the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under : “1 1 .'.. .we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 1.54 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 that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is heid, it is open to the aggrieved person to hie an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate concerned. lf such an application under Section 156 (3) is’ tiled 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. 1?. 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 investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an F.l.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 police. Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., though briefly 1 (2007) 6 SCC 171 2 (2008) 2 soc 409 worded, in our opinion. is very wide and it wiii inciude all such incidentai powers as are necessary for ensuring a prope investigation.” 6) in the matter of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and otherss, also the Hon’bie Supreme Court reiterates .the aforesaid View. 7) Sufficient safeguards are given in the Cr.P.C., therefore, if any, grievance exists the petitioner may approach tirstiy, the Superintendent of Police of the District concerned and; thereafter, to the Court of Judiciai Magistrate under the provisions of Section 190 read with Sections 200 to 203 and other provisions of the Cr.P.C. 8) in view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition stands disposed of. Gowri 9) consequent'y- a“ the handing appiications stand diSposed or 1 sd/- ' , 1 Satish K. Agnihotri i! Judge ‘, 3 (2008) 7 scc 164 r