IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No.M-16485 of 2010 ….. Date of Decision 28.05.2010 Piar Kaur and another ...... Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents Present: Mr.R.K. Arya, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** S.S.SARON, J: The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for directing respondents No.1 and 2 to inquire into the complaint of petitioner No.1 and proceed as per law against respondents No.4 to 8. It is alleged by the petitioners that respondents No.4 to 8 were trying to take forcible possession of land measuring 10 marlas, which is very valuable and abutting towards the road of the village. Due to the said reason, on 09.05.2010, respondents No.4 to 8 tried to occupy the said land but on restraining them from doing so, they attacked the petitioners and caused injuries to them with sharp edged weapons. In this regard, statement of Santokh Singh (petitioner No.2) has also been recorded by the police, which is reproduced in para No.2 of the petition. The said statement, it is submitted, makes out a cognizable offence but despite that no FIR has been registered. It is submitted that the petitioners have been pressurized to Cr. Misc.No.M-16485 of 2010 compromise the dispute with respondents No.4 to 8. Rather, on the statement of Ranjit Singh (respondent No.7), FIR No.10 dated 13.05.2010 under Sections 323, 324, 34 IPC (Annexure P1) has been registered against the petitioners and their family members but no case has been registered against respondents No.4 to 8. A reference is also made to the medico legal report (Annexure P-2) of Santokh Singh (petitioner No.2) in which he is stated to have received five injuries. Aggrieved against the inaction, the petitioners also approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Batala (respondent No.2) but no action has been taken by him. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the primary grievance of the petitioners is that FIR (Annexure-P.1) on the statement of Ranjit Singh (respondent No.7) has already been recorded, is not being recorded against the petitioners but no FIR or cross-version on the statement of Santokh Singh (petitioner No.2) has been registered against respondents No.4 to 8. In this regard it may be noticed that this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is normally not to issue directions for registration of FIR or cross-version. In Aleque Padamsee and others versus Union of India and others (2007) 6 SCC 171 (SC), it was observed that the correct position in law is that the police officials are to register an FIR whenever the facts brought to their notice show that a cognizable offence has been made out. In case the Police officials fail to do so, the modalities to be adopted are set out in Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. Therefore, if a person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. are to be adopted and followed. 2 Cr. Misc.No.M-16485 of 2010 In Sakiri Vasu versus State of U.P. And others 2008 (1) RCR(Criminal) 392 (SC), it was observed 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 lead to any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is not registered or even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file such application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned if such an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and can also direct proper investigation to be made in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. However, a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for directing the registration of a FIR is to be done only in some rare and some exceptional cases. In the present case, the petitioner has his remedy of approaching the Magistrate in case there is any inaction on the part of the police in not registering his FIR/cross-version. The present is not a case which would warrant the issuance of directions by this Court for registration of a FIR or a cross-version. In the circumstances, the petition if so advised, may avail other remedies as are available to him in accordance with law. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE 28.05.2010 mamta-II /hsp 3