fte^" ^ f^ /AF^ HIGH COURT ©FCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRTT PETITION No. 3213 of2005 : Bab^lal Bhd, S/o Shri Btamarilal, Aged about 66 years, Occupation - Retired Teacher, Resident of Nargoda, Sub Tahsil aiid P.S. Seepat, Talisil - Mastori, District ~ Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Throu^i - Secretary, Home Departmmt, Raipur (C.G.) 2. OfiRcer Incharge, Police Station, Tumgaon, District Mahasamund (C.O,) WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTnUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Sattdi K. Asrfhotri. J. Present: Smt. Hamida 8i<Mique. Advocate for tihe petitioner. Shri Vinay Harit, Dq)uty Advoc^e General forthe StMe/respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on 07m day of November, 2008) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for fhe petftioner submits fhat fhe petitioner is agg^ieved by fhe maction of the police aufhoriti^s for not investigating the death ofhis son namely Swesh BhcA and <me Ayub Khan, who was the fiiend Suresh Bhoi, even after registering a crime No. 4/2005 under section 302 aml 201 of fhe Indian Penal Code. The petitioner pra^ fhat Ifae said incident be investigated by fhe Central Bureau oflnvesti^iti<m. 2) In this regard, law is very elear. tfthe Police Station is not recording fhe infonnation as referred in sab-section (1) of 8ectfe>n 154 ofthe €odeof Criminal Procedwe, 1973 (for short <<athe Cr.P.C.^), complaint can be madb to the Superintendent of Police of the District cot^emed. Evai if the .^^^-<^^ -2- iSupenntendent of Police fmls to teke any action. the con^plainairt can tak^ recourse to provision ofSection 190 read with Section 2(X) oftheCr.P.C. 3) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matta- of Aleque Padamsee and ofliers Vs. Union oflndia and othws1 held Ifaat "ifaay pwson i8 a^rieved by the inaction oftfae police officials in registering the FIR, tfae modsdities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 ofthe Code are to be adopted aiid observed.^ 4) In the matter of Saldri Vasu vs. State of U.P. imd ofliers?, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as und©r: "11.. ..we would like to state fhat if a person has a grievance fhat fhe police station is not re^^eriag his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he ean approach tiie Supemitendent of Poliee uader Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C., by an application iii vmting, Even if tiiat does not yield assy satisfactory result in tite sense fhat eifher fhe FIR is still not registered, or tiiat even after registeraig it no proper mvestigatioxi is held, it is open to tihe aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., before Ifae leamed Magistrate concem^. tfsuch agn applicatioxi under Section 156 (3) is i5kd before tiie Magistrate, the Magistrate caxi <Hrect Ae BIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved pCTsor^ no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate eaii also under the same provisiaa ni<autor Ifae investi^tion to ensure a proper investigatiori. 17. In our opinion Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is wide enougb to mclude a!l ^uch pov^rs in a Magistrate which are nec^ssary for ensuriiig a proper investigation, and it mcludes the power to order registratioti of an F.LR. aiad oforderiag a proper investigation iffhe Magisfrate 1$ satisfied tfaat a proper investigation has aot beeii done, or 1 (2007)68cc 171 2 (2008) 2 SCC 409 IA S :^ i 11 %^ <^^ ''^^'T"^ -3- is not beaag done by fhe police. Seetion 156 (3| Cr.P.C., &ough briefly worded, ia oiff opN<»i,is very wide and it wiM inchide aM sudi incictetal powers as are necessary for ensuring a prop^- mvestigation." 5) In fhe matter of LaBta Kumari Vs. Govemment of Uttar Pradesh and others3, also the Hon^ble Supreme Court reiterates the aforesaid view. ^ 6) SujGBcient safeguards are giveii m fhe Cr.P.C^ tterefbre. if any^ grievance exists the petitioner may approach firstly, Ae Superintendent of Police ofthe District concemed and; thereafter, to the Court of Judicial Magistrate under the provisions ofSection 190 read with Seations 200 to 203 and oth©rprovisions oftfie Cr.P.C. 7) In view ofthe above, without e^qpressing any opinion on Ihe merits of fhe case, the petition stands disposed of Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit 3; (2008)73cc 164