•^^s^^* :'*^S?ai. H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.1188 OF 2004 Deendayal, S/o Shri Dhanau Satnami, aged 31 years, R/o village Turma, Post Gurra, Tahsil Bhatapara, Distt. Raipur (CG). Versus I- Stale of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary', 1-iome (Police) Departonent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Siiperintendent of Police, District Raipur (CG). 3. The Incharge of Slation Hnuse, Gramin Thana Bhatapara, DisS. Raipur (CG). 4. Satyanarayan, S/o Varnu, aged 21 years, R/o viiiage Turma, P.S. Bhatapara, Gramin, Thasil Bhatapara, District Raipur (CG). (Writ petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of tndia) Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnthotri; J. Present: Shri Y.C. Sharma, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORAL ORDER (Passed o?s this 1Sm day of October, 2003) Leamed coiinsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has ffled complainte i.e. Annexures-P/2, P/3, P/4 & P/5 hefnre the Polioe Airthorittes to the effect that the respondent No.4 name!y, SaSyanarayan committed the miirder of the daughter of the peSitioner namftly, Hemlata by seftirin her at fire on 14-1-2004, but the Poiioe airthorities have nof renistered !he Firsf Snformation Report. Thos, the PnlicB Officers are not taking any jnterest in the matter and not proceeding with She complaints of the petitioner. 2) In this renard, laiw is very clear. If the Police Station is not recording the infonnation as referred in sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the Code of Crimina! Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.P.C."), complaint can be made to thc Superintendent of Police of the District concerned. Even if the Siiperintendent of Poltee fails to take any action, the oomplainant can take recourse to provision of Section 190readwithSection 200oftheCr.P.C. 3) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ateque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of !ndia and others held that "if any person is aggrieved bv the inaotion of the Dolice officiala in reRisterino the FIR, the modalities -) A.-AisU -'2-- J'.;- 1-;S-'*<'S^-;£L&%;< conteined in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed." 4} !n the matter of SaHiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as iinder : "11...-we would like to state that jf a person has a grievance ihaS the poiice sSation is not registering his FIR under Sectton 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendsnt of Police imder Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C., t>y an appiication in writing. Even ifthat does ncw yieid any satisfactory resijlt in the sense that either the FIR is still not registereri, or that even after regislerinn it no proper investigation is heid, it is open to the aggrieved person to ffle an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate concemed. !f such an application under Section 1»(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, awording to the aggrieved pereon, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can aiso under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigafion. 17. tn our opinion Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary fcr ensuring a proper investigation, and it inciudes the power to oraer regi?rtration of an F.I.R. anri of ordering a proper investigation if the I.lagisSrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., Shough brieily worded, in our opinion, is vsr;' wids and it wili inciude ali such incidental powers as are neoessary for ensuring a proper investigation." >) In the matter of Lallta Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others , also the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterates the afwesaid view. 6) Sofficient safeguards are given in the Cr.P.C., therefore, if any, grievance exists the petitiona' may approach firstly, the Siiperintendent of Potice of the District concerned and; thereafter, to the Court of Judicial Maaistrate under Ihe provisions of Section 190 read with Section 200 oftheCr.P.C. 7) For the foregoing reasons, the petition stands disposed of. Consenuently, h4.(W.).P.No.1067/2004 atso stanris disposeri of. ^OWFi sdy- Satish K. Agnihetri Judge -{