In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-7153 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:10.3.2010 Pardeep Kumar .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' - for short) for taking action against respondent No.4, who is Station House Officer, CIA Staff, Fazilka, District Ferozepur for illegally detaining the petitioner in CIA Staff, Fazilka from 26.2.2010 to 1.3.2010 and for further directing respondents No.1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner and his family members from respondents No.5 and 6. According to the petitioner, he is one of the registered partner of the firm M/s Kisan Commission Agents, New Grain Market, Fazilka. Bhoop Ram (respondent No.5) approached the said firm for opening a current and mutual account in the account books of the firm which was opened. Bhoop Ram (respondent No.5) started selling his crops through the agency of the firm -M/s Kisan Commission Agents. The said Bhoop Ram in order to discharge his liability issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.12,26,300/- on 20.1.2009. The cheque on presentation was dishonoured due to Cr. Misc. No.M-7153 of 2010 [2] insufficient funds. The petitioner being partner of the firm-M/s Kisan Commission Agents filed a complaint (Annexure-P.1) in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka against Bhoop Ram (respondent No.5) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The firm- M/s Kisan Commission Agents through the petitioner also filed a suit for recovery of Rs.12,26,300/- against Bhoop Ram (respondent No.5) and his sons Mohinder Kumar and Pawan Kumar. It is submitted that Bhagirath Godara (respondent No.6) is close associate of Bhoop Ram (respondent No.5) and they have a say in the local Police. Under the influence of respondents No.5 and 6, the Police of CIA Staff, Fazilka on 25.2.2010 came to the house of the petitioner and asked him to come to CIA Staff, Fazilka on 26.2.2010. The petitioner, it is alleged, was illegally detained at Police Station, CIA Staff Fazilka from 26.2.2010 to 1.3.2010. In respect of illegal detention, the petitioner has also submitted a complaint dated 2.3.2010 (Annexure-P.3) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur (respondent No.2), however, it is submitted that no action has been taken. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it may be noticed that the petitioner primarily seeks registration of criminal case for his illegal detention for the period from 26.2.2010 to 1.3.2010. In this respect, it may be noticed that this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is normally not to issue directions for registration of a FIR. In Aleque Padamsee and others v. 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 a FIR whenever the facts brought to the notice show that cognizable offence has been made out. In case the Cr. Misc. No.M-7153 of 2010 [3] Police officials failed 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. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (1) RCR (Cr.) 392 (SC), it was observed by the Supreme Court 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 circumstances, the petitioner may, if advised, avail other remedies in accordance with law. The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. March 10, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*