CD C § ‘INZ/ IN THE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT BIIASEUR CHHATTISGARH w.P. cr. No. 09 2011 PETITIONER z /‘ Gokul mmmumwu uwmmuwmm w M x x S/o Shri Govind Das, aged about 60 years, 'R/o Village Pipri Nawagaon, District Chhatarpur (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENTS : / 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through: the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, D.K.S. Bhawan, Manatraiaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director General of Poiice, / Chhattisgarh, Poiice Headquarter, Raipur (C.G.) /’ 3 Collector, District Biiaspur (C.G.) 4 / Superintendent of Police, District Bilaspur (C.G.) /5. Station House Officer, Mungeii, District Biiaspur (C.G.) /6. Station House Officer, Dhasterpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) /7. Dr. Suresh Rathore, R/o Mungeii, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 8. S. Hansraj, S/o Damru Prajapati, R/o Ward No. 2 Maharajpur, District Chatarpur (M.P.) Kamlesh, S/o Shri Gubindi Prajapati, R/o Ward No. 2 Maharajpur, Chatarpur (M.P.) /10. Ashok Prajapati, S/o Pyareial Prajapati, R/o Ward No. 5 Toriya Mohalla, Chatarpur (M.P.) 11. / Manoj Bhatta Wale, R/o Near Gutku Station, District Bilaspur (C.G.) @ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22 2 7 OF THE CQNSTITUTIQN OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATI‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C11) No. 7094 of2011 PETITIONER : Gokul. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’hle Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. I Present: Smt. Renu Kochar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Afun Sao, Government Advocate for the State. 0 R D E R (Passed on 29Wvmnber, 201 1) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the” police authorities, instead of registering oEence under section 302, 120B and 201 ofthe Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC '), have registered offence under section 304, 279 and 337 ofthe IPC when the death ofthe the son ofthe petitioner namely Rampal took place in suspicious circumstances. Even atter‘making a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, nothing has been done in this regard. 2. Be that as it may, section 190 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code, 1973 ’) provides for redressal of grievance in such a case wherein the petitioner can make a. complaint to the Magistrate to take cogrizance of the on‘ence 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, I973. Thus, on the basis of documents produced by the petitioner, it would not be proper for this Court to make any direction when the etfective remedy of approaching to the Magistrate under the above stated provisions of law, is available. Ifthere 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. 3, The Supreme Court, in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & otherSI, while considering the situation wherein the police station or the Superintendent of Police has failed to perform their duties, observed as under: n-_a' “1 1. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not reg'stering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the i Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C., by an application in writhlg. 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 aggieved person to tile an... appiication under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) is filedbefore the Magistrate, the Magisuate can direct the FIR to be reg'stered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved l (2008) 2 soc 409 person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.” 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 mid effective forum of making an application/complaint before the magistrate under the provisions ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, is available. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits ofthe case, the petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the aforestated provisions of law, if so advised. Sd/- f SATISH K. ANGNII-IOTRI Judge