HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WR1T PETITION (Cr.) No. 5941 of2008 Hardik Kakkad, aged about 31 years, S/o Sfari Jammna Das Kakkad, R'o Neai- Gujrati Samaj, Ti3<rapara, Biiaspur (CG). VERSUS : 1. The State ofChhattisgarh through Secretary its Secretary Home Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur. 2. Director Generai ofPolice, Raipur. 3. SupenntendentofPolice, Bilaspur. 4. Station House OfBcer, Police Station, Tarbahar, Bilaspur. 5. Central Bureau of Investigation, through Superintendent of'Police, Carves Building, Jabalpur. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTinj'nON OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Slm Satish K. Agiuhotri, J. Present: ShriP.S.KoshywithShri Punit Ruprela, Advocates fbr the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Lawyer for the State. Ms. Shannila Singhai, Advocate for the respondent No. 5. ORALORDER (Passsd on 11th day ofDeeember, 2008) Wrth the consent ofthe parties, the matter.is takeii up for hearing fmally. 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petifionei' submits that fhe petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the police aufliorities for not mvestigating the complaint ofthe petitioner, properiy. The petitioner made an ^,applieation on 22.08.2008 (Aimexure P/4) befbre the concemed Police Authoriti'es by raising liis all grievances, but they have not taken any action. Thus, the Police Authorities are not taking any interest on the matter and not proceeding with the application ofthe petitioner. 2. In tlris regard, law is very clear. If the Police Station is not recording the urformation as referred in sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the Code of la -cSssa '*~a»sss* 2 Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "fhe Cr.P.C."), complamt can be made to the Supermtendent of Police of the District eoncemed. Even if the Superintendent of Police fails to take any action, the complainant can take recourse to provision ofSection 190 read with Section 200 ofthe Cr.P.C. 3. The Hon'ble Supreine Court in the matter ofAleque Padamsee and others Vs. Unlon of India and others held that "if any person is aggrieved by fhe inaction ofthe police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read wifh Section 200 of fhe Code are fo be adopted and observed." 4. In the matter of Salari Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others', the Hon'ble 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 Supermtendent ofPoUce uader Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C., by an application in writing. Even iffhat does not yield any satisfaetory resuft in the sense that either the FIR is still not reeistered, or fhat even afier 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 leamed Magistrate concenied. If such an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, fhe Magistrate ean drreet the FIR to be registered and also caa direct a proper mvestigation to be made, in a case where, aceordmg to the aggrieved person, no proper mvestigation was made. • ITie Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to eiisure a proper mvestigation. 17. In our opimon Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to mclude all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper mvestigatioii, and it iacludes the power to order re^istratioa ofan F.I.R. and of ordermg a proper investigation ifthe Maeistrate 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 mcidental powers as arp. necessary for ensuring a properinvestigation." . ^y (2007; 6 SCC 171 (2008) 2 SCC 409 ./''" ^' !i"fi t^SSSSs, * •<siSI ?£^^^"^' ;!>S-s-!rfss>" ^ 5. Iii tiie matter of LaBta Kuinafi Vs. Govermnent of Uttar Pradesh and others, also the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterates the aforesaid view. 6. Sufficient safeguards are giveii in the Cr.P.C., therefore, if' aiiy, gnevance exists the petitioner may approach firstiy, the Supenntendent ofPolice ofthe District concemed and; thereafter, to tiie Court of Judicial Magistrate under the provisions of Section 190 read with Sections 200 to 203 and other provisions ofthe Cr.P.C. 7. In view ofttie above, without expressing any opinion on the merits ofthe case, the petition stands disposed of. 8. Consequently, pending applications, ifany, also staiids disposed of. Sd/- Satisb K. Agnihotri Judge ^ ^.Iji.iiu,..;,.,- ^^