IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-35608 of 2010 Date of decision: 06.12.2010 Sandeep Chopra …. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others ….. Respondents Present : Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) for directing respondents No.2 and 3 to register a FIR against respondent No.4 and to investigate the matter. The petitioner and the respondent had a partnership firm i.e. a Brick-kiln. Initially the dispute arose between them which was compromised and the partnership was dissolved. Respondent No.4 in consequence of the dissolution of the partnership firm issued six cheques for an amount of `29,11,000/-. Five of the cheques were for an amount of `5,00,000/- each and one cheque was for an amount of `4,11,000/-. The petitioner presented two cheques in his bank for encashment and both were dishonoured and returned with the remarks “insufficient funds”. A request was made to the respondent No.4 who stated that he would pay the money. On 16.2.2010 at about Crl. Misc. No. M-35608 of 2010 [2] 9’O clock a call was received on the mobile phone of the petitioner from respondent No.4. He asked the petitioner to take the money and return the cheques. The petitioner reached the brick-kiln with two cheques and as soon as he took out the cheques from his pocket, respondent No.4 pointed his pistol on the head of the petitioner and snatched away the cheques and went away with his Honda City Car from the spot. While going, he (respondent No.4) said that if the petitioner informed the police about the matter, he would kill him and put all the bullets in his head. The petitioner gave a representation (Annexure P2) on 17.2.2010. It is submitted that respondent No.4 had forcibly snatched both the cheques from the petitioner so that the petitioner could not file a case against respondent No.4. The petitioner gave his representation to the SHO as well as to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra but no action has been taken. Therefore, it is submitted that a FIR be registered against the petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner cites State of Haryana and Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1991 (1) RCR (Crl.) 383, Kuldeep Singh v. State, 1994 (2) RCR (Crl.) 498, Narota Ram v. State, 1995 (1) All Instance Judgment 517 (P&H), M. Latchumanan v. Union Territory of Pondicherry and Others, 2005 (3) RCR (Crl.) 671 and Sushma v. State of Haryana and Others, 2005 (4) RCR (Crl.) 788. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter and with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner have perused the record. It may be noticed that this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is Crl. Misc. No. M-35608 of 2010 [3] normally not to issue directions for registration of a FIR. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of Police officials in not registering a FIR, he has to avail his remedies in accordance with law. 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 fail to do so, the modalities to be adopted are set out in Section 190 read with Section 200 CrPC. Therefore, if a person is aggrieved by the inaction of Police officials in not registering a FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 CrPC are to be adopted and followed. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP and others, 2008 (1) RCR (Crl.) 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 CrPC, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC 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) CrPC before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC 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, Crl. Misc. No. M-35608 of 2010 [4] according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. However, a petition under Section 482 CrPC for directing the registration of a FIR is to be done only in some rare and some exceptional cases. In the present case, the petitioner has his remedy of approaching the Magistrate in case there is inaction on the part of the Police in not registering a FIR. In the circumstances, the petitioner if so advised, may avail his other remedies as available to him in accordance with law. The Crl. Misc. petition is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE December 06, 2010 amit