In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-20858 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:22.7.2010 Satinderbir Kaur .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate for Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for issuance of appropriate and necessary directions to the respondents to take action on the complaint dated 6.7.2010 (Annexure-P.1) as per mandate of Section 154 Cr.P.C. by registering a case against the persons named in the said complaint and thereafter to proceed in accordance with law. The case relates to a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and her husband Jaspal Singh. It is alleged by the petitioner that she was married to Jaspal Singh. Hari Singh and Simranjit Kaur are the parents of Jaspal Singh. Happy is the brother of Jaspal Singh and Mandeep Kaur is the wife of Happy. There are allegations of the petitioner being harassed at the house of her in-laws which it is submitted makes offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 307, 295, 295-A, 148 and 149 IPC. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that the Police is not registering a FIR on her complaint dated 6.7.2010 (Annexure-P.1). In this regard, it may be noticed that the Police is bound to register a FIR where a Cr. Misc. No.M-20858 of 2010 [2] cognizable offence is made out. However, this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not normally to issue directions for registration of a FIR. In Aleque Padamsee and others v. Union of India and others, (2007) 6 SCC 171 (SC), it was observed that the correct position in law is that the Police officials are to register a FIR whenever the facts brought to the notice show that cognizable offence has been made out. In case the Police officials failed to do so, the modalities to be adopted are set out in Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. Therefore, if a person is aggrieved by the inaction of the Police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C are to be adopted and followed. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (1) RCR (Cr.) 392 (SC), it was observed by the Supreme Court 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 lead to any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is not registered or even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file such application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and can also direct proper investigation to be made in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. However, a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for directing the registration of a FIR is to be done only in some rare and some Cr. Misc. No.M-20858 of 2010 [3] exceptional cases. In the present case, the petitioner has his remedy of approaching the Magistrate in case there is any inaction on the part of the Police in not registering the FIR. The present is not a case which would warrant the issuance of directions by this Court for registration of a FIR. In the circumstances, the petitioner if so advised, may avail his other remedies as available to him in accordance with law. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly disposed of. July 22, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*