•..,^3"ss%. /y^ t 1 t:y I. .../ "<:-, ^ ^^•^r< •^ w ••-/' V HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WmTPETITIONN^,J514of20<M PETIT10NER : D.P. Vipra Science/Arts/Comm. College, Hi^i Court Road, Bilaspur (CG) through: Principal Dr. Umasharikar Shukla. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of CG. Through Secretary Home Affairs.. Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur. 2. Secretary, Higher Education State ofC.G. Mantralaya. 3. Director General ofPolice, Raipur (CG). 4. Superintendent ofPolice, Bilaspur (CG). 5. Station House Officer City Kotwali, Bil^pur (CG). 6. Personal Manager SECL Seepat, Bilaspur (CG). 7. Tlie Collector, Bilaspur (CG). 8. Avinash Prasad Pasi^ S/o Durga Prasad Pasi, aged about 32 yrs. R//o High Court Behmd Tikrapara, Bitopur 9. Govind Prasad Pasi, aged about 22 yrs. R/o High Court Behind Tikrapara, Bilaspur (CG). 10. Shivdlian Gandle, S/o unknown, aged about25 yrs. R./o near D.P. College, Tikrapara Bilaspur (CG). 11. Nazim S/o unknown, aged about 25 yrs. R/o Behiad High Court Tikrapara Bilaspur (CG). 12. Rohit S/o uiikiiowii, aged about 24 yrs. R/o Near D.P. Vipra College, Tikrapara Bilaspur (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble SIm Satfsh K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Surfaraz Khan, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyerforthe State. pKALORDER (Passed on 19th day ofJanusry, 2009) Wifh the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up fbr hearing finally. 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner/college submits that fhe petiti(mer is aggdeved by the inaction on the part of ttie police aufhodties for not mvestigatmg fhe complamt ofthe petitioner, properly. rThe petitioner/college made applications dated 29.07.02,28.06.03 and 02.07.03 (Amiexure P/4 colle.) before the concerned Police Authorities by raising Ns all grievaiices., but they have not taken any action. Thus, the Police Authorities are not taking any interest on the matter aad not proceeding wifh the application of the petitioner/college. •^ ^s^?"; 2. In fhis regai'd, law is very clear. tt fhe Police Station is not recorditig the itrfbrmation as referred in sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (fbr short 6<1he Cr.P.C.5'), complaint can be made to the Superintendent of Police of Ifae District concemed. Even if the Superintendent of Police fails to take aiiy actioa, the complamant can take recourse to provision ofSection 190 read with Section 200 ofthe Cr.P.C. 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in tiie matter of Aleque Padamsee and ofliera Vs. Umon of Indm aad others held that "if any person is aggrieved by Ae inaction ofthe police officials in registering fhe FIR, fhe modalities contained m Section 190 read wifh Section 200 of ttie Code are to be adopted and observed." 4. In tiie matter of Sakui Vasu vs. State ot' U.P. and others^, tihe Hon'ble Supreme Court obser^ed as under: &611....we would like to Mate that ifl a person has a grievaiice that the police station is not registeriiig his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superinteiident ofPolice under Seotion 154 (3) Cr.P.C., by aa application in writing. Even tf that does not yield any satisfactosy result m tlie sense fhat either the FIR is still not registered, or that even attei' registering it no proper mvestigatioo is held, it is open to fhe aggrieved p^rson to tile aa application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., before tihe lcamed Magistrate concemcd. Ifsuch an application usider Section 156 (3) is filed before fhe Magistratey the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered aiid also can direct a proper investigation to be niade, m a case where., accordmg to the aggrieved persosi, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate caa also under the same provision momtor the iiivestigatioxi to ensure a propcr mvestigation. 17. In our opinion Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such powers m a Magistrate which are necessary for ensurmg a proper investigation. and it mcludes the power to order registration ofasi F.I.R. aad of ordering a proper investigation iftiie Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not bemg done by fhe police. Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opiiiion, is very wide and it will include all such incidentol powers as are necessary for ensuruig a propor iiivestigation." ^ t l(2007)68cc-171 2 (2008) 2 SCC 409 /^^ "%. ^^ ^j V>4^ ^%^^2^^ ^ 5. In tfae matter of Lafita Kumari Vs. Govemment of Uttm- Pradesh and others, also the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterates the afbresaid view. 6. Sufticient safeguards are given m fhe Cr.P.C., fherefore, if any, grievaiice exists the petitioner may approach firstly, the Superintendetrt ofPolice ofthe District concemed and; fhereatter, to the Court ofJudidal Magistrate under the provisions of Section 190 read with Sections 200 to 203 and otiier provisions ofthe Cr.P.C. 7. In view offhe above, without expre^sing any opinion on fhe merits offhe case^ the petition stands disposed of. 8. Consequently, M(W)P No. 4047/04., application fbr ad interim relief, staiids disposed of —_^ - Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge r Sahu