HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3237 of 2003 : Sanjay Pérekh S/o ate Shanti Lal Parekh aged ut 35 yea, R/o ar ahaya Mandir, ajim, Distt. aipur (C.G > VERSU : 1. Th State of Chattisgarh, hrough th ’ Seetary, epartent H ff ' er Dm of ome Aairs, ,V Maimalaya, D.K.S. buding, aipur 2. Th Direo Genal o Polie, 'ta Police ead Quarter, Raipur, Tehsi n Distct Rai CG) ’ V 3. he Superintendent of olce Raipftt Tehsi T Pi, , l aiid Digtrict (CG) 4. The Station House Oifxcer, Plice Station Razim, Tehsil Razim, District Raipur (CG) 5. The Tehsildar, Tehsi‘i Razi Dstrict Raipur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF TIE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Smt. Renu Kochar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 16 day of January, 2009) By this petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs: l) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 4 to produce the entire record relating to submission of written report by the petitioner for kind perusal ofthis Hon’ble Court; 2) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents more particularly the respondent No. 4 to register the FIR against the culprits whose names have \ been shown in the written report of the petitioner and investigate the matter in its true spirit; 3) That the respondents No. 3 and 4 be directed by writ of mandamus to forthwith provide the protection to the petitioner and his property and be further directed to prohibit the accused persons hom encroaching and interfering in the petitioner’s private land; 4) That the respondents no. 3 and 4 be further commanded to compensate the petitioner either from their own pockets or from the accused persons to the tune of Rs. 50,0GO/- as damages demolition of the boundary wall of the petitioner or in the alternative they be directed to construct the nesh boundary wall; PETITIONER L abo m Ne Mma R R .) S ‘ RESPONDENTS e h T ee il R (C.G.v) 3, e ctr er f c Chhatisgrh, H l adr ri pur ( W}, Ratpui m, i ‘ i \ 5) Any fxt and other proper relief may which also this be Hon’ble passed Court in favour may of deem the petitioner together with cost ofthe petition. The main grievance of the petitioner is that one Ashok Mishra (Parshad), Tiju, 'Mamakhan Patel: Fattu, Lal Dhiwar are forcibly damaging and demolishing‘the properties of the petitioner. A complaint has been lodged to the police but the police has not taken any steps so far. In the present case, the question of facts are involve¢ Firstly, whether the property belongs to the petitioner and secondly, if a third party is trying to create disturbance or demolition, tggk'appropnate remedy would be to approach the competent civil court for appropriate relief, if so advised. In respect ofthe alleged criminal offence, sumcient. forum is available under the provisions of law. In this regard, law is very clear. Ifthe Police Station is not recording the information as referred in sub-section (l) of Section 154 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”), complaint can be made to the Superintendent of Police of the District concerned. Even if the Superintendent of Police fails to take any action, the complainant can take recourse to provision of Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others1 held that “if any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200'of the Code are to be adopted and observed.” In the matter of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P, and othersz, the Hon’hle Supreme Court observed as under ' “‘11....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 V r 1 (2007) 6 soc 171 - { l ‘ (.2008) 2 sec 409 ,\ § I’M . either the FIR is still not registered, or that even aiier registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggieved person to file an application under S'ection 156 (3) Cr.P.C., before the leamed Magistrate concerned. I 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 Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation. ’ l7. In our opinion Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a proper investigation if the May‘strate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very Wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a r proper investigation.” ,‘t W 6. In view of the foregoing, this petition cannot be adjudicated upon for want of facts which can only be decided by the civil court. Thus, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate forum whatsoever, that may be available to the petitioner, under the provisions of law. Consequently, M(W)P No. 2951/2003, also stands dismissed. i .1. Sd/- g Satish K. Agnihotri Judge \ "l t l id “