IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M- 9456 of 2010 Date of decision: 30.3.2010 Subhash Kumar and ors …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and ors …Respondents Present: Mr HS Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioners. S.S.SARON, J. This petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed for issuance of appropriate directions to the official respondents to proceed against the private respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners has inter alia contended that the District Attorney has given an opinion on 30.7.2008 (P6) that the officials of Supreme Securities Limited had committed extortion and misappropriated Rs 50,000/- of the petitioner, thereby they had committed an offence under Sections 384 and 406/34 IPC. It was opined that the case be registered against them in Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana. Despite the said opinion, the FIR has not been registered. Therefore, it is submitted that a FIR is liable to be registered against the officials of the Supreme Securities Limited as a cognizable offence is made out against the private respondents. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, the grievance of the petitioner is that FIR in the case is not being registered against the private respondents even though a cognizable offence is made Cr Misc M-9456 of 2010 2 out and the District Attorney has also given an opinion in this regard. It may, however, be noticed that this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is not to normally order 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 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, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Cr Misc M-9456 of 2010 3 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 the FIR. The present is not a case which would warrant the issuance of directions by this Court for registration of a FIR. In the circumstances, the petitioner if so advised, may avail his other remedies as available to him in accordance with law. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly disposed of. 30.3.2010 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge