In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc.-M No.5602 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:6.3.2009 Gurmail Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Gaurav Singh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' - for short) has been filed seeking directions to respondents No.2 and 3 to register a case (FIR) against respondents No.4 to 9 under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the petitioner has approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur (respondent No.2) by way of an application dated 3.1.2009 (Annexure-P.4) for registration of a case against respondents No.4 to 9 on the allegations that they have grabbed about 20 acres of land in Village Danewala Satkosi. However, there has been inaction by the Police. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that brother of respondent No.7 is the District Secretary of Bhartiya Janta Party and is closely associated with the State President of BJP. Therefore, the application of the petitioner is not being entertained. It may be noticed that for the purpose of registration of a FIR in Cr. Misc.-M No.5602/2009 [2] respect of a cognizable offence the petitioner is liable to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154 (1) Cr.P.C. i.e. by approaching an officer in-charge of the police station concerned. In case there is refusal on the part of an officer in-charge of the police station he is to avail his remedy under Section 154 (3) by approaching the Superintendent of the Police concerned. There is nothing to show that the application (Annexure-P.4) has been received in the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur (respondent No.2). In any case, in case there is inaction by the Police and the Police officials failed to register a case, the proper remedies in such a case which are to be adopted are set out in Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. 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 Cr. Misc.-M No.5602/2009 [3] 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. 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. March 6, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*