HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH : B!LASPUR Writ Petition No. 2403 of 2003 Petitioner Chtiattisgarh State Industrial Developraent corporation Limited, tbrough. its Branch Mauager, Tifra Bianch, BQaspur (C, G.) Versus Respondents 1. 5. 6. State of Chhattisgarli, - tbrough Secretary, Honie Departnient, Bhawaii, Raipur (CG) The Director General of PoUce, State of Clihattisgarh, Police head Quarter, Raipur (CG) T'he Inspector Geueral of Police, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (CG) The Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur. The Station House Ofiicer, Seepat Police Station, Seepat, District Bilaspur (CG) Shri Roshaii Lal Jaiswal, S/o Roopchand Jaiswal, aged about 33 years, R/o Village Dhaiiiya, TallsU Masturi, Distt. Bflaspur. Shri Roopchaild Jaiswal, S/o Late Lalit K'uinar .Jaiswal, aged about 62 years, R/o Village Dhamya, Talisii Masturi, Distt. Buaspur. Sbri Kanhaiya Lal Sahu, S/o RamayaalaLl Sahu, aged about 28 yeai's, R/'o Village Bifkula, Talisil Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur, WRrT_£ETrTTQN_UNDERARTICLE 226 & 2.27 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hoii'ble Shri Satisli K. Agxuliotri J.) Shri Kasluf Shakeel, Advocate for the petitioner. Sbri M. P. S. BIiatia, Deputy Gort. Advocate for the respondents No, 1 to 5. (Passed on this 2 Ist day ofAugust, 2009) Learned counsel appearuig for the petitioner subinits that the petitioner-Corporation has ffled this petition beiiig aggrieved by tlie order dated 28.11.2002 (AimexLire P/ 10), whereby the poUce has decliaed to take action against bon-ower Roshait Lal ">.. ^-/2-. Jayaswal and others, on the coinplaint inade by fh.e petitioiier- Corporation. What wiU be the proper course in such cases where fhe poUce is not taldag any action OQ the complaint/report filed by a person, the petitioner shoiild file a coiaplaiat case before Magistrate. The Hon'ble Supreine Court ui Aleque Padamsee other-s Vs. Union of India and others1 %a. para 7 aiid 8 held as under :- " 7. Wheaever any information is received by tbe poUce about the alleged coniinission of offence which is a cognizable one there is a dut}r to regist.er the FIR. There can be 110 dispute on that score. T'he only question is whether a writ caa be issued to the police autliorities to register the saine. The basic question is as to what course is to be adopted if fhe police does liot do it. As was held iu AU India Institute of Medical Seieuces case aiid re-iterated in Gangadbar case the reinedy available is as set out above by filiag a com.plaint befoi-e the Magistrate. Ttiough it was faintly suggested that ttiere was confllct m. tlie views in AU India Institute of Medical Sciences case, Gangadhar case, Hari Singh case, Minu Kum.ad case and Raiaesh Kuiaari case, we find that fhe view expressed ia Ram.esh Kuniari case related to the action. required to be taken by the police when aiiy cognizable ofFence is brought to its aotice. In Ramesh Kuinari case the basic issue did aot relate to ttie nietliodology to bc adopted wliicli was expressly dealt with in AU India Institute of Medical Sciences case, Gangadhar case, Minu Kuin.an case aiid Hari Siiigh case. The view expressed in Ramesh Kuinari case was re-iterated in Lallan Chaudliai^r V. State of Biliar. The course available, wlien the police does not carry out the statutoiy requireiaents under Section 154 was directlv in issue in AU India Institute of Medical Sciences case, Gangadhar case, Hari Siiigh case and Miiiu Kui&ari case. The correct position in law, therefore, is that the police officials ought to register the FIR whenever facts brought to their notice show that cognizable oflerice has been luade out. In case the police officials fail to do so, the iiiodalities to be adopted are as set out m. Section 190 read with Section 200 of tbe Code. It appears that in ftie present case uutially the case was tagged by order dated 24.2.2003 \vith WP (C) 530/2002 and WP(Q 221/2002. Subsequen.t.ly, tliese ivrit petitions ~were de-Unked fi-oxn the aforesaid writ petltioiis. 8. The writ petitions are finally disposed of wifh fhe foUowing directions: (1) Ifaay person is aggrieved by the iiiaction ofthe police officials in registenug the FIR, tbe modalities contained 1 (/,• {(2007) 6 SCC 171] r~ ^, ii^ ^' •^ <.,'• » '"'" ia Section 190 read with Section 200 ofthe Code are to fce adopted aiid observed. (2) It is open to any person aggrieved by the inaction of the poUce officials to adopt tlie reiaed;' iii terms of the aforesaid provisions. (3) So far as non-grant of saaction aspect is concenied, it is for the govenunent concerned to deal with the prayer. The govRrnmp.nt concerned would do weU to deal wifh the inatter within three Hionths fi-oin. the date of receipt of tlus order. (4) We m.ake it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on tlie merits oftbe case. The above view was referred approvingly ia. Sakiri Vasu ¥s. State ofU.P. fe others2. In view of the above, the petition is disinissed as not laaiatauiable, However, as prayed, libert)r is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to the alternative forum fbat luay be available under provisions of law, if so advised. Thalais- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 2 /,(2008) 2 SCC 409 F':i