In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-26340 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:8.9.2010 Naunihal Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Divjyot S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for directing respondents No.1 to 3 to take appropriate legal action against respondent No.4 for indulging in illegal activities and travelling abroad on forged and fabricated documents by getting a passport issued under a fake identity. It is stated that the petitioner has come to know that Pargat Singh (respondent No.4) had travelled abroad on forged and fabricated documents and on the identity of Balbir Singh son of Jarnail Singh. The petitioner informed the Immigration Authorities at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi by FAX on 1.1.2010. Thereafter, he moved an application to the Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Jalandhar (respondent No.3) that Pargat Singh (respondent No.4) had obtained a passport under the name of Balbir Singh though said Balbir Singh had already got a passport in his name. The respondent No.4 had also Cr. Misc. No.M-26340 of 2010 [2] obtained ration card (Annexure-P.3) in the name of Pargat Singh in September 1997. Even in the voters list the name of respondent No.4 is mentioned as Pargat Singh. However, he has obtained a passport under fake identity of Balbir Singh. The petitioner made an application in this regard to the Police. It is submitted that under political pressure the DSP, Sub Division, Shahkot submitted inquiry report dated 1.5.2010 (Annexure-P.4) in which he had wrongly exonerated respondent No.4 and given him a clean chit. The petitioner thereafter moved an application (Annexure-P.5) to SSP, Jalandhar for conducting an inquiry by some senior officer. The petitioner has also submitted an application to the Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Jalandhar requesting him to get a FIR lodged. Thereafter, the petitioner has moved the Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar on 27.8.2010 (Annexure-P.7). Having no other alternative, it is submitted, the petitioner has approached this Court. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that primary grievance of the petitioner is for registration of a FIR. The petitioner alleges that respondent No.4 had obtained a false passport. Section 12 of the Passport Act provides for offences and penalties. It is provided therein that whoever knowingly furnishes any false information or suppresses any material information with a view to obtaining a passport or travel document under this Act or without lawful authority alters or attempts to alter or causes to alter the entries made in a passport or travel document shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both. The offences where the punishment is two years are non-cognizable in terms of the Ist Schedule of the Cr.P.C. relating to Cr. Misc. No.M-26340 of 2010 [3] classification of offences. It is provided that the Police is bound to register FIR where the cognizable offence is made out. However, this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is normally not to issue directions for registration of a FIR. In the present case admittedly, the petitioner Pargat Singh is stated to have committed a non-cognizable offence. Therefore, the petitioner may, if so advised, approach the concerned Magistrate for taking cognizance of the offence in accordance with law. 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 exceptional cases. Therefore, the petitioner has his remedy of approaching the concerned Illaqa Magistrate in case there is inaction on the part of the Cr. Misc. No.M-26340 of 2010 [4] Police. Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. September 8, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*