IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-15046 of 2010 Date of decision : 20.5.2010 Jaswant Singh Cheema …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others ….. Respondents Present : Mr. Arjun Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) for directing respondents to take appropriate legal action on the representations dated 25.2.2010 and 27.4.2010 (Annexures P9 and P10) respectively made by the petitioner. A reading of the said representations shows that the case of the petitioner is that his forefathers were owner of the land on which a religious place known as Sai Baba Peer Baksh is situated. Earlier the forefathers used to look after the ‘Dargah’ but in the year 1965, they appointed Sai Jeet Shah as the care taker of ‘Dargah’ and after his death, his son Rajan Shah had been appointed as care taker and looking after the ‘Dargah’. Some anti-social elements namely Malkit Singh, Pawan Kumar, Charanjit Singh Bhatia, Gurbachan Singh want to usurp the religious place of which Rajan Shah is presently care taker. With a view to usurp the religious place, the above referred persons got registered a society under the name and Crl. Misc. No. M-15046 of 2010 [2] style of Sai Bab Peer Baksh Sudhar Committee, Bal Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. It is alleged that they forged the signatures of S/Sh. Gurmit Singh, Jagir Singh, Piara Singh, Jaswant Singh, Jagat Ram, Baldev Singh, Pawan Kumar and Karnail Singh. The copy of the application (Annexure P1) moved by the said persons is placed on record. They have also deposed an affidavits (Annexures P2 to P8) in this regard. By getting the society registered by forging the signatures of the above referred persons, Malkit Singh and others have obtained a loan of Rs.2 lacs from the Government. The said facts came to the notice of the petitioner and the petitioner along with one Rachhpal Singh made written representations dated 25.2.2010 and 27.4.2010 to the Commissioner, Ludhiana and Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana. But no action has been taken against them. It is alleged that from the documents annexed a case of forgery and cheating is made out. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the primary case of the petitioner is for registration of FIR as it is a case of forgery and cheating. In this regard, it may be noticed that 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 failed 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 registering the FIR, the modalities Crl. Misc. No. M-15046 of 2010 [3] 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 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 any inaction on the part of the Police in not registering the FIR. The present is not a case which would warrant the issuance of directions by this Court for registration of 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 May 20, 2010 amit