IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 70 OF 2011 SHRI JOSEPH A. MENDONCA ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA, BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents The petitioner is present in Person. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 1st August, 2011 P.C. Heard the petitioner, who is present in person and Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2. This writ Petition is directed against the order dated 30th October, 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa in Criminal Revision Application no.84/2010 preferred against the order dated 20th May, 2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji in Criminal Miscellaneous Application no.2/2010/B by the applicant against the respondents under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 3. The petitioner herein filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate, First Class against Director General of Police and Superintendent of Police, Panaji, Goa seeking direction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to register F.I.R. against Mr. Omprakash Kudtarkar, who was functioning as Superintendent of Police (Headquarters). The learned Magistrate dismissed the application and the revisional Court also dismissed revision filed against such order. 4. The petitioner, who appears in person submitted that both the Courts have erred in rejecting the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and, therefore, both the orders are liable to be set aside. 5. Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Through S.P., Jaipur Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another; (2001)3 SCC 333 submitted that the Magistrate can only direct the Officer-in-charge of Police Station to carry out investigation after registering F.I.R. in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 6. I find merit in the submission of Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor that if an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, is made by a person, if the application has merit the Magistrate only can direct the Officer-in-charge of Police Station to investigate the offence alleged against a particular accused after registering F.I.R. In the present case, the reliefs are not sought against the Officer-in-charge of Police Station, but against Director General of Police and Superintendent of Police. As such, the application itself was not maintainable in law and, therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned orders. On this ground alone, Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 7. Needless to mention that dismissal of this Writ Petition would not come in the way of the petitioner from availing of appropriate remedy as may be available in law. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA