HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON fC) No. 4136 of2007 Vimla Devi Patel W/o Late Churanjan Patel Aged about 35 years, Wo village Jawali, Poliee . Station Dabhara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONTtENTS. : l. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretay, Home Departinent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director General of Police Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Supcfuiteuderit of Police, Maliasat'nund District Mahasamund (C.G.) 4. Statiou House Officer, Saraipali, District Mahasainund (C.G.) WRTT FETmON LTNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TIIE CONSTITLTION OF JNDIA SB: Hon'Me Shri_Sat!sh,K,_AjEnaiotn,_J. Present: Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate tbr the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Govenitneiit Advocate for&e State. OKDER (ORAL) (Passed on 09tb day of July, 2009) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioiier submits that fhe petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of the police aufhorities for not. investigating the tnurder ofher husband namely Cfawanan Patel who was hrutally murdered by some unfcnown persons on 1 1.04.2006. Tfae grievance even after lodging of the FIR with die police Station Saraipali, auttiorities haye not takeii any steps to investigate the matter titl date. istfaat the poliee 2. ln this regard, law is very clear. If the Police Station is not recording fhe irformation as referred in sub-section (1) of Section 154 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.P.C."), complaint can be madeto the Superintendent of Police of Ifae District concemed. Even if the Superintendent ofPolice fai3s to take any action, the complainant can take recourse to provision ofSection 190 read with Section 200 offhe Cr.P.C. 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter ofAleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union oflndia and others held that "if any person is aggrieved by the inaction ofthe police officials in registering fhe FIR, fhe moda!ities contained (2007) 6 SCC 171 -/-—~- ,.,^Si^;5!"^S'fe ^'"^»»."~^is> ^SEi-h .^Slg^^ ^J1' :^3^-~F-S??-' in Section 190 read with Sectioa 200 of th.e Code are to be adopted and 4. In the matter of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and other/, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under : "11....we would iike to state that if a persoa has a grievaiice that the police station is not registering fais FIR uader Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach thc Supcrintendent of Police uader Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C., by an appiication m writine. Even ifthat does uot yield any satisfactory resu!t iii fhe sense tliat either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it ao proper mvestigation is held, it is opeii to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate concemed. Ifsuch an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, tlie Magistrate caii direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, iii a case where, accordiiig to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate cac also under the same provision momtor the mvestigation to ensure a proper uwestigatioii. 17. In our opinion Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is wide euou^i to include all such powers ia a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, aud it iacludes fhe power to order registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magisti-ate is satisfied that a proper itivestigation 3ias not been done, or is not beins done by the police. Section 156 (3) Ci-.P.C., thou^i biiefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include al! such tucideutal powers as are ueucgsary for easuring a proper investigation. 5. Siifficieat saf'eguards are given in fhe Cr.P.C., therefore, if any, grievance exists the petitioner may approach fu-stiy, the Superintendent ofPolice ofthe District eoncemed and; fhereaft.er, to the Court of Judicial Maeistrate under the provisions of Section 190 read with Sections 200 to 203 and other provisions ofthe Cr.P.C. 6. In view of the above, wifhout expressing any opinion oa the merits of the case, the petition stands disposed of. Satish K.Agnihotri Judge - (2008) 2 SCC 40S