z M^ttCS^OF GHHATTISGARH.BIUISPUR PETITIQNER RESPONDENTS WJ».fCr.)No.478ofa>10 Vipin Bihari Agrawal, son of Shri Ram BhajanAgrawal, agedabout 58 years, R/o Near HighSchool Palari, Tahsil Palari, District Raipur (C.G.) Vensus 1. Stete of Chhatti^arh, Tteroi^h: the Secretary, Department of Home, D.K.S. Bhawan, RaJpur(C.G.) 2. The Coltector, Rafpur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. TheSuperintendent of Polkse Raipur, - District-Rai(^ir(C.Gj 4. The Police Station, Palari, District Raipur Through : (ts Offteer Incharge, P.S. Palari, Oistriet Raipur (Writ Petitfon underArtide 226^127 ofthe Gonstiftitfon of ImUal ADpearance: " Mr. Chhabi Patel, Advocate for the petitiona'. Mr. ArunSao, Govt. Advocateforthe Stat^respomfentson advancecopy. ORALQBDER (02.02.2(>1B) StlNU. KUWAR SINHA. J; Heard. Mr. Chhabi Patel, teamed counsel for the petitioner, submlte that even after reporting the matter relatfng to theftof crops and theft of tmiber of certain tree in police station, theconcemed authorities have not registered the F.I.R. and have not even initistfedthe Investigation, therefore, the presentwrit petition has been fited. Accordjng to the contents of the writ petition Radhey Shayam Sahu, Rikhiram Sahu and Sitaram Sahu all residents of village Datan have committed theft of the paddy crops of the petitioner. The land in question was in cuNivating po^ession of the motherof the pelitioner W.(UCrJNo.4?8^rf2010 namejy ShalanrtalaSai and the petitioner had showithe crq3sson them. According to the petitioner, a conizabte effence is made out sgainst the aforesaid persons but the authoritles of the concerned pottee stalion sffe not r^istering the F.I.R. In A/eoue Pacfamsee and oOiers -vs- Unkm of 7nd/a amcf otliefS. (2007) 6 SCC 17i. the Apex Court held vlde paras 7 & 8 as follows: "7. Whenever any information is received t^ ttie Police about the alleged commission of offence which is a cognizable one there is a duty to register the F.I.R. Tftere css\ be no dispute on that score. The only question is whether a writ can be issued to the poltee authorities to register thesame. The bastequestion isastowhatcourse is to be adopted if the police does notdo ft. As was held in All indsa InsStuteof Medteal Sdences case <2)and reiterated in Gangadharcase (3) the remedy available is as set out above by filing a complaint before the Magistrate. Thoqgh it was faintly suggested that there was conflk^ in flie wews inAll Indialnstitute of Me<£cal Soences case, Gangadhar Case, Hari Singh case (5), Minu Kumari case (4) and Rame^i Kumari case(1), we find that the view expressed in ^amesA /<umaffcaserelatedtothea<^ionrequiredtobetakentoythe poltoe when any cognizable offence is brought to its itotlce. In Ramesh Kumaricase, the basic issue did not relateto the methodol(^iy to beadopted which was expressfyideatt with in AIIJndialnsSftiteefMeclioalSiseRcescwe.Gafigaiffiarcase, MiniiKumari caseand Hari Singh case. Theviewexpressed in /?ames/? Kumaricase was reiterated in ta//affCftauo a/y V State ofBihar (6). The course available, when the police does not cany out the ^atutory requirements under Section 154 was directly n issue in All India InslsUite of MeiScal Sciences case, Gangadhar case, Hari Slngh caseand Mlnu Kumari case. The con-eet position in law, therefore, is that the police offeials ought to registerthe FIR whenever facts brought to their notice show that cognizable offence has been made out. tn case the police officials fail to do so, the modafities to be adopted are as set out in seetion 190 read with section 200 ofttie Code. It sppears ttet in the p'esent case initially the (^ise was tagged by order dated 24.2.^)03 with WP(C).No.530 of 2002 and W.P.(C ) Ho.221 of 2002. Subsequentty, these writ petttions were delinked from the aforesaidwritpetitions. - OM W.P.fCr.l No. 479 of 2010 'Y. 8. The writ petitions are finally disposed of with e fdlowing directions: (1) If any person is aggrieved by the inactfon of the police officials in registering the FIR, the modatitles oontained in section 190 read with section 200 ofthe code are to be adopted and observed. (2) It is open to any person aggrteved by the inaetton of the police officials to adopt the remedy in tenns of the aforesaid provlsions. (3) So far as non-grant of sanction aspect is concemed, it is for the Govemment concemed to deal with the prayer. The Government concemed would dowell to deal with the msdter within three months from the date of reGeipt of this order. (4) We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits ofthe case." Further- in Sakiri Vasu - Vs- State of Uttar P/aefesft (20081 2 SupremeCourt Cases 409 the Apex Court held vide paras26,27 S 28 as Tollows: 26. "If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the Poltee Station his First remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police u/s 154(3) erPCor other police officer referred to in Section 36 CrPC. Ifd^pite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the offteer referred to in section 36 hisgrievance still pereists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a wrlt petltion or a petition under section 482 CrPC. Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal comptalnt under section 200 CrPC; Why then should writ petNions or Sectton 482 petitions toe entertained when there are so many alternattee rem«lles? 1:%. 1 2$ W.P.TCr.tNalTS ofMW 27. As we have alreaKly observed above, tfie Magisbate ftas very Kride powers to dlrect r^istration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensurethat the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investlgate himself). The High Court should discourage the practlce of filing a writ petition orpetition under Section 482 CrPC slrnply because a personhas agrievance thathis FIR has notbeen r^istered by the Police, or after being registered, propa- mvestigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy ties under secAlons 36 & 154(3) before the polfoe officere concemed, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under section 200 CrPC and not by ffling a writ petitionor apetition under Section 482 CrPC. 28. It is-true that attemative remedyis not an absolute bar to awrit petition, but it is equallywellsettl«lthatiftherefean attemative remedy the High Court shotdd notopdinarily interfere." tn view ofthe above, t am not inelined to entertainthis wrtt p^ttlorr for issuanw of a writ to the concemed police authorities as prayed for by the petitioner. The wrltpetition.therefore, is liable to bedisrnissed and is dismi^ed summarily. However, the petitionershall be at liberty to awail the other appropriate remedies in aecorctance with law. Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge vatH