•ifc.uaca&MiiaE-^mn PETiTIONER HSGR COURT OF CHHATTISOARH- BILASPUR WRIT PETITiON N0. 302S OF 2003 Smt. (ndsfmati Supekar, W/o Late Padmakar Supekar, aged about 68 years, E-2/191, Arera Colony, Bhopal, through its Power of Attorney Shri Shashikant Supekar, aged about 40 years, R/o E-2/191, Arera Colony, Bhopal (MP). RESPONDENTS Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh. through the Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Director General of Poiice, State of Chhattjsgafh, PoJice Headquarter, Raipur (CG) 3 The Inspector General of PoHce. Rajpur Divisjon, Raipur (CG), 4 Superintendent of Police, Ra'ipur, District Raipur (CG). 5 Station House Officer, PS • Gole Bazar, Raipur, DSstrict Raipur (CG). (Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constltution of India) Singie Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Kunal Das, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 20 day of Gctober, 2008) 1 earned counsel appearing for the petltjoner submlts that the petitloner got ancestral land at vilSage Seoni. District Raipur. Some persons have forged the sjgnature ofthe petitloner In the general power of attorney and thereafter the property in question has been mutated in thelr favour, The petitloner has filed complalnts 1 e Annexures-P/9, P/10 8. P/11 before the Police Authonties, but the Poljce authorities have not teken any actiors on the reports of the petitioner. Thus, the Police Offlcers are not taking any interest in the matter and not proceeding with the complaints of the petitioner. :^-^^h. "~^ %l:-—^i^^ ^ "^^^•.•;<:^;^ i' -2^- ?) In thi? regard, law fe very clear If the Police Station is not recorrijng the jnformation as referredl In sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (forshort "the Cr.P.C"), complaint can be made to the Ssiperintendent of Poljoe of the District concerned. Even jf the Superintendent of Police fails to take any action, the complainant can take recourse to provjsjon of Section 190 read with Section 200 ofthe Cr P C. 3) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of {ndia and others hdd that "if any person is aggrieved bythe inaction ofthe police offidals jn registering the FIR> the modsiljties contained in Section 1 90 read wjth Section 200 of the Code are to be ^dopted and observed/' 4) !n the matt©rof Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and othersr. the Hon'ble Sypreme Court observed as under" "11 .we would like to state that if a person has a grievanoe that the poijce station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr P.C., then he oan approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154 (3) CrP.C., by an application in writing. Even if that does not yjeld 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 aggrieved person to file an application under Sectlon 156 (3) Cr.P,C., before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be reglstered and also can direct a proper investiQation to be made, in a case where, accordlng to the aggrieved person, no propes investigation was rnade. The Mlagistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper jnvestigation. 17. In our opinion Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to indude aiS such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper jr^vestigation, and it in^ludes the power to order registration of an FJ.R. and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. 1(2Q07)6SCC171 ^ (2008) 2 SCC 409 ass^w^a^aa _^^-> Section 156 (3) Cr PC., though briefly worded, In our opinion, is very wide and jt will include all such jncidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation." 5) In the matter of Lalita Kumari Vs. Oovemment of Uttar Pradesh and others3, aSso the Hon ble Suprome Court reitorates the aforesaid vsew. 6) Suffjcient safeguards are given in the Cr P C , therefore, (f any, gnevance exists the petitjoner may approaoh firstly, the Superintendent of Police of the District concerned and: thereafter, to the Court of Judjclal Maglstrate under the provisjons of Section 190 read with Section 200 ofthe Cr.P.C. 7) For the foregoing reasons, the petition stands disposeci of. Consequently, M(W).P.No. 1067/2004 ateo stands disposed of. iiown Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ' (2008) 7 SCC 164