\0? HIGH CQURT_OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2501 of 2006 Petitioner Satyapujaa. Mishra, S/o Late Shaakaj Mishra, aged about 40 yeara, Occupation ; Busiaess, R/o near Shiv Mandir, Korea, Baikuathpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, fhrough the Secretary, Department of Home, Mantrayala; DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chliattisgarh. 2. Inspector General of Police, State of CIihattisgarh, Police headquarters, Raipur, Cliliattisgarh. 3. Superiatendent of PoUce, Baikunthpur, . District; Korea, Chhattisgarh. 4. Pradyuiaaii Tivvari, Assistant Sub Iiispector, Police Chowld; Korea, Police Station; Chinuin, District: Korea, Chliattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hoa'ble Shri Satish K. AgnihotriJ.) Shri. Sunil Tripafhi, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri Aruii Sao, Govt. Advocate for fh.e respondents No. 1 to 3. Shri Ufkarsh Verma, Advocate for the respondent No.4. (Passed on this 31»tday ofAugust, 2009) Leamed couiisel appearing for fhe petitioner submits fhat fhe petitioner has niade several coinplaints about the couduct of fhe respondent N6.4 to various police aufhorities but no action has yet been taken agaiast the respondent No.4, who is an. Assistaat Sub Inspector in the PoUce Departinent. What wiU be fhe proper course m such cases where fhe poUce arc not takmg any action on fhe coiuplamt/i^port filed by a person, the petitioner should file a complamt case before Magistrate. The HonTale Supreme Court iu Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India aad others1 ia para 7 aad 8 held as iiader :- 1{ (2007) 6 SCC 171} '^ " 7. Whenever aay inform.ation is received by ttie police about fhe alleged coiumission of ofiFeace which is a cognizable one there is a duty to register the FIR. There caa be no dispute on that score, Tlie only question is wh.ether a writ can be issued to the police authorities to register fhe same. The basic question is as to what course is to be adopted if the po.iice does not do it. As was held in AU. India Institute of Medical Sciences case aiid re-iterated in Gaagadhar case the reiuedy available is as set out above by filuig a coaiplaint before fhe Magistrate. TIiougli it was fauitly suggested fhat there was conflict iu fhe views in AB. India lustitute of Medical Sciences case, Gangadhar case, Hari Snigh case, Minu Kuinari case and Ramesh Kum.an case, we fiad fhat the view expressed iu Raniesh Kuiuari case related to the action required to be taken by the police wben aay cognizable offence is brought to its notice. In Raoiesb Kuiaari case the basic issue did not relate to fhe m.ethodolog;r to be adopted which was expressly dealt with in AU India Institute of Medical Sciences case, Gangadhar case, Miiiii Kuinari case and Hari Singh case. The view expressed in Ramesh Kumari case was re-iterated in Lallan Chaudhary V. State of Biliar. The course available, when fh.e poUce does not cany out tlie statutory requirem.ents uiider Section 154 was direcUy ui issue ui AU India Institute of Medical Sciences case, Gaugadliar case, Hari Sin.gh case and Miau Kuinari case. TIie correct position iii law, therefore, is fhat fhe police of&cials ought to register fhe FIR whenever facts brought to their notice sliow th.at cognizable offence has been miade out. In case (he pouce ofEcials fail to do so, fh.e niodalrties to be adopted are as set out in Section 190 read with Sectiou 200 of the Code. !t appeai's that in the present case iiiitiaUy the case was tagged by order dated 24.2.2003 with. WP (C) 530/2002 and WP(C) 221/2002. Subsequentiy, theae writ petitions were de-liiiked froiu the afoiiesaid writ petltions. 8. The writ petitions are finally foUowiag directions; disposed of with fhe (1) Ifaay person te aggrieved by tfae iaaction ofthe poUce of&cials in registering fhe FIR, the niodalities contaiaed m. Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted aad observed. (2) It is open to aay person aggrieved by the inaction of tb-e police of&cials to adopt the reniedy ui ternis of ttie aforesaid provisions. (3) So far as non-grant of sanction aspect is conceme.d, it is for the govemment concemed to deal wifh tlie pl-ayer. The goverainent concenied would do weU to deal with fhe inatter wifhia fhree monfhs froiu fhe date .of receipt of fhis order. (4) We inake it clear tiiat we have not expressed any opiaion on ttie nierits oftlie case." -— \- ^? 3 3. The above view was referred approvuigly iu. SaMri Vasu .Vs 4. In viev." of tlie above, the petition is disraissed as not m.akLtam.able. However, as prayed, Uberty is reserved to fhe petitioner to take recourse to fhe afore-stated judicifll foruiu fhat inay be available under provisions oflaw, ifso advised. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge (2008) 2 SCC 409