-..;I.G>^':.^.^^_:-';.:,..^ :'!!S-. ' . : .' : • IN THE; HONSLEHIGHCOURTOFCHHA'n'ISGARHAT BItASHURICHMA'mSQARH) •WRTT PETmONfCR.) N0. % ^S^ /2010. PETITIONER: Kuiidanram, son of Mangturara, aged about 6S years; residence of village Lipti, Police Station Kapy, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. versus Resoondents ^/r^^ M./ ¥^ '::1^/ ;MSi' ^IB^::' "yt^; :•.. <:•' /\.. State of Chhatdsgarh, Throi^h Secretary Home Departinent, D.K..S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. TSwe.iLtViY ^^» @vision^<3eneraLtQfPolice,Ray^^ -;ehhattis^rh. .: , • , ^- : \,': :: • • ^3. Supenntend6ntofPolice,Raagarh,, ehhattis^rh. ,- r ^ 4. Station;Hiyuse OfBeei, PoUce Statiott. Kapu^'F^sil DttarariyaigaFh, Distri®t RaigEtrii, Ghhattisgarii. . . WRrF PETEFIQN UNDER AKnCLE 22&OP THE CONSTiTUT^QNOFINBIA 1, PAfiTICWARS Oii'l'HE^mnONERfSI: Asmentkined inthe eause fitle. h 2, PAMB©l.ffcARSOii'THERESP@NDENT(S): '.As,||gg^^gdlm.1^^'a:use^tltte-' ;:;:1'' . •''' '*'-»•;:: ;;''; 3, mgricm.^®<^ WHICff 1'HES^I ['© ,^8 as^ TW^^' MA'FIERIWBmEB. ®B HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON (Cr) No. 3753 of2010 PETmONER : Kundanram. RESPO^roENTS VERSUS State ofCU]attisgarh& Others. WRTT PETniON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF raE CONSTTTmiON OF INDIA SB: Hon'Me Shri Satish K. Asgnihotri, J. Present: Shri C.J.K.Rao and Shri Harish Khutiya, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Dqiuly Advocate Oeneral forthe State/respondents. ORDERtOBAL) (Passed on 27th day ofJuly, 20M) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner suhmits that dead body ofthe son ofthe petitioner, namely Vimal Kujur was found m an open field ofone Jugeshwar Yadav, new a pond. Shri Rao fartfaer submits fhat the police has not taken any action till date and the case has been closed. 2. Be that as it may, section 190 ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code, 1973') provides for redresal of ^ievance in such a case wherem tiie petitioner can make a complaint to the Magistrate to take cognizance offhe offence aad further, under section 156(3) ofthe Code, 1973, the Magistrate is fuUy empowered to order an investigation as mentioned in ofher provisions ofseetion 156 ofthe Code, 1973. Thus, on the basis of documents produced by the petitioner, it would not be proper far this Court to make a direction for re-investigation when the effective remedy ofapproaefaing to the Magistrate under the above stated provisions oflaw, is available. 3. The Supreme Court, in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uf. & others , while considering the situation wherein the police station or the Supermtendent of Police has failed to perform Iheir duties, observed as under: . ' (2008)2SCC40S --^. ^ ..l-?i ,; 5. Amit "II. In tfais connection we would like to state that if a person has a ^ievance that the poliee station is not registering his FIR under Seetion 154 Cr.P.C., then he can , approach the Superintendait of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C., by an application in writing. Even if tfaat _does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense tiiat either the HR is still not registered, or that even afier registermg it no proper mvestigation is held, it is open to the aggneved person to file an appUcation undar Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., before the leamed Magistrate concemed. Ifsuch an application under Section 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper mvestigation to be made, in a case where, acoording to the agpieved penson, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under ttie same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation." Admittedly, the petitiona- has not taken recourse to the provisions of section 156(3) ofthe Cr.P.C. by making an application to the 'Magistrate concemed for appropriate acticn on fhe complaints of tiie petitioaer. Thus, at this stage, it would not be proper to interfere with the matter in exa-eise of ^wit jurisdiction when the pTapet and effective forum of making an application/complaint *•• before the magistrate under the provisions ofthe Code ofCrinnnal Procedure, is available. Tbus, without expressing any opimon on fflie merits offhe case, the petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to take recoiuse to the aforestated provisions oflaw, ifso advised. Ifsueh a complaint is made before fhe jurisdictional Magistrate, it is expected that the same shaU be dealt with expeditiously in accordance with law, on its ovm merit. Sd/- :, ^; ^^«botr» .(udge \~ • 11 'ili 'iS SSI Sii ^HBBmwwu^'uflB^^*