IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-7170 of 2010 Date of decision : 16.3.2010 Sunil Kumar …. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others …. Respondents Present: Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. The petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for issuing necessary directions to respondents No.1 to 3 to take appropriate legal action and investigate the matter against respondent No.4 who it is stated is the erring police official. The case set up by the petitioner is that on 11.3.2009 at about 6.30 p.m., the petitioner came from village Mukimpur to Bahalgarh Chowk (Sonepat) for some household work. At the chowk, ASI Ram Tirath (respondent No.4) was standing there. He stopped the petitioner and started abusing him. The petitioner was taken to the police post and forced to sit there. ASI Ram Tirath (respondent No.4) demanded Rs.50,000/- from the petitioner and also held out threats that if he did not give the money, he would be falsely Crl. Misc. No. M-7170 of 2010 [2] implicated in a case of dacoity. By saying this, respondent No.4 also took the motorcycle, mobile and purse of the petitioner. It is alleged that while the petitioner was forcibly confined at the police post then one of the relatives of the petitioner namely Jitender resident of Tihar Malik came there and made a request to leave the petitioner and on his request, the petitioner was released by respondent No.4. On the next day i.e. on 12.3.2009, the petitioner along with his relatives and respectables went to the Police Station and refused to give money to respondent No.4. When the petitioner refused to give money to respondent No.4 as he had not committed any illegal or wrongful act, respondent No.4, it is alleged, started shouting and abusing the petitioner. When the petitioner asked respondent No.4 not to abuse then he was beaten by respondent No.4 who forcibly undressed him; besides, he was beaten in an undressed state. In the meantime, one of the relatives of the petitioner gave an amount of Rs.8,000/- from an ATM card of the petitioner and got Rs.2000/- from the house of the petitioner. The petitioner gave Rs.10,000/- to respondent No.4 which was forcibly extracted. It is after giving Rs.10,000/- that respondent No.4 left the petitioner after making him sign on blank papers. The petitioner made a representation dated 16.3.2009 (Annexure P1) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sonepat and also to the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak. A copy of the same was sent to the Chief Secretary, Haryana for taking necessary action. However, no action has been taken. The petitioner also filed a Crl. Misc. No. M-21200 of 2009 in this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 5.8.2009 (Annexure P6) with the direction to the Superintendent of Police, Sonepat (respondent No.3) to look into the Crl. Misc. No. M-7170 of 2010 [3] grievance of the petitioner as raised in the representation and dispose it of expeditiously, but in accordance with law. After passing of the order dated 5.8.2009 (Annexure P6), the petitioner gave a certified copy of the order along with a forwarding letter and the same was supplied to the Superintendent of Police along with a copy to the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak. It is submitted that the respondents in order to save their own police official did not take any action despite the directions issued by this Court. It is submitted that in view of the cognizable offence being made out, the respondents are bound to register a case. After giving thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the primary grievance of the petitioner is for registration of a case against ASI Ram Tirath, Police Post Bahallgarh, District Sonepat (respondent No.4) who it is alleged had conducted highhandedness. Despite directions issued by this Court, no action has been taken. Insofar as the directions of this Court are concerned, the same only for looking into the grievance of the petitioner as raised in the representation and dispose it of expeditiously in accordance with law. The same does not mean that only action that was to be taken was that FIR should be registered. The petitioner has not submitted anything with respect to the action that may have been taken on the representation. No information under the Right to Information Act had been sought by the petitioner from the Superintendent of Police, Sonepat (respondent No.3) as to the outcome of the representation submitted by him which was asked to be looked into in terms of the order dated 5.8.2009 (Annexure P6) passed by this Court. Even otherwise, this Court in exercise of its Crl. Misc. No. M-7170 of 2010 [4] inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is not to embark upon an inquiry to ascertain as to whether the allegations as made in the representation or complaint are correct or otherwise. 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, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. However, a petition under Section Crl. Misc. No. M-7170 of 2010 [5] 482 CrPC for directing the registration of a FIR is to be done only in some rare and some exceptional cases. 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 March 16, 2010 amit