r <S. , i- ' 00 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITIONYCRI.'l NO.£y>%Q QF 2011 PETITIONER //" Amol Singh, S/o Bisauha Satnami, aged aboutc^f years, R/o Vil!age Karhi, Police [Station Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) VEBSUS RESPONDENTS : ^y^ /?''"^"" ..<"'• ^ V'e. f..--"\.-^ •'f-y ..• ^^^ //'^^ ^'y7" •^^' A' M ^ State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, Department of Home, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) District Magistrate and Collector, District Durg (C.G.) Superintendentof Police, District Durg (C.G.) Station House Officer, Police Station Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) Shatruhan, S/o Gokul Satnami, aged about 45 years, Gaya Prasad, S/o Shatruhan, aged about 23 years, Amarchand, S/o Shatruhan, aged about 25 years, Respondent No. 5 to 7 are Village. Karhi, Police Station Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) /k ^"v^ ^ ^-^ ••-"<••a,fii'*ic m WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Cri.) N0.6389 OF 2011 PETITIONER Amol Singh Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri P.P, Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for ths State. 0_R_D_E_R (Passed on this 21st day of October, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents authorities to register criminal case for ths offence punishable under Sections 445, 294 & 506 Part-11 ofthe Indian Penal Code and other offences, against the respondents No.5 to 7 and thereafter, arrest them. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in spite of complaint made by the petitioner, the respondents No.3 & 4 are not taking any action against the respondents No.5 to 7, who had entered into the house of the petitioner forcefully and destroyed the articles, which is an offence punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The respondents No.5 to 7 also threatened the petitioner and his family members with dire consequences. Thus, this petition. 4. Be that as it may, Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (fo/-s^ort 'the Code, 1973') provides for redressal of grievance in such a case wherein the petitioner can make a complaint to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and further',.under Section 156 (3) of the Code, 1973, the Magistrate is fully empowered to order an investigation as mentioned in other ^:: ^^, -'/ provisions of Section 156 ofthe Code, 1973. Thus, on the basis of documents produced by the petitioner, it would' not be proper for this Court to make any direction when the effective remedy of approaching to the Magistrate under the above stated provisions of law, is available. If there is undue delay on the part of the police authorities in investigation of the matter, that can also be directed by the Magistrate. The power of the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Code, 1973 to order such investigation, as empowered under Section 190 of the Code, 1973 includes a direction to investigate the matter within a reasonable time without causing undue delay, on receiving a complaint for slow and undue delay in the investigation. 5. The Supreme Court, in Sakiri Vasu v. State ofil.P. & others ,wh\le considering the situation wherein the police station or the Superintendent of Police has failed to perform their duties, observed as under: "11. In this connection we would like to state 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 yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such 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 investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Maglstrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation." 1 (2008) 2 SCC 4T19 7. Gowri Admittedly, the petitioner has not taken recourse to the provisions of Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. by making an application to the Magistrate concerned for appropriate action on the complaints of the petitioner. Thus, at this stage, it would not be proper to interfere with the matter in exercise of writ jurisdiction when the proper and effective forum of making an application/complaint before the magistrate under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is available. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the aforestated provisions of law, if so advised. Sd/- S^h^-Af 3ud%e ibo^1