% HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARI-I, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (CL) No.7521 of 2009 PETITIONER Rambharos s/o Dhanai, aged about 43 years, R/o Village Semra, Post~ Nagpur, Tahsil & P.S. Manendragarh, District Korea (CG). Vs. RESPONDENTS 1. State of ‘Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G). 2. Superintendent of Police, Korea, Distt. Korea (0G) Raipur, Superintendent of Police, District Raipur (C.G) (C.G). 4. Station House Officer, Police Station Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G). 5. K. P. Tiwari, Manager, Tata Motors, Office at M/s Shivam Motors Private Limited, Sector C—4, Sirgitti Industrial Area, Raipur Road, Bilaspur (C.G). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION ‘ OF INDIA . 'V Appearance: Mr. F. S. Khare, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Amrito Das, Panel Lawyer, for the State/respondents 1 to 4 on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (11.01.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J, \i Heard finally with the consent of the parties. \ /’/ ‘ ‘77 2 W.P§ Cr). No.7521/2009 Petitioner Rambharos has filed this petition for the following relief(s) : “10. RELIEF SOUGHT: In View of the above, the petitioner humbly and most respectfuliy prays for the following reliefs : A. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent police authorities to register a criminal case against respondent no.5 under the Indian Penal Code and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 B. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for te entire records relating to the petitioner’s matter, for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may kindly be granted in favour of the petition er. " Thus, the petitioner, in substance, has alleged inaction on the part of the State authorities and has prayed for issuance of direction to them to register a criminal case against respondent no.5 under the Indian Penal Code ’and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In Alegue Padainsee and others —vs- Union'otlndia and others, (20072 6 SCC 1 71, the Apex Court held vide paras 7 85 8 as follows: “7. Whenever any information is received by the Police about the alleged commission of offence which is a cognizable one there is a duty to register the F.I.R. There can be no dispute On that score. The only question is whether a writ can. be issued to the police authorities to register the same. The basic question is as to what course is to be adopted if the police does h 3 4; W.P(Cr). No.7521/2009 not do it. As was held in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Case (2) and reiterated in Gangadhar case (3) the remedy available is as set out above by filing a complaint before the Magistrate. Though it was faintly suggested that there was conllict in the views in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case, Gangadhar case, Hari Singh case (5) Minu Kumari case (4) and Ramesh Kumari case(1), we flnd that the view expressed in Ramesh Kumari case related to the action required to be taken by the police when any cognizable offence is brought to its notice. In Ramesh Kumari case, the basic issue did not relate to the methodology to be adopted which was expressly dealt with in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case, Gangadhar case, Minu Igumari case and Han' Singh case. The View expressed in Ramesh Kumari case was reiterated in Lallan Chaudhary V. State of Bihar. The course available, when the police does not carry out the statutory requirements under Section 154 was directly in issue in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case, Gangadhar case, Hari Singh case and Minu Kumari case. The correct position in law, therefore, is that the police officials ought to register the FIR whenever facts brought to their notice show that cognizable offence has been made out. In case the police officials fail to do so, the modalities to be ‘ adopted are as set out in section 190 read with section 200 of the Code. It appears that in the present case initially the case was tagged by order dated 24.2.2003 with WP(C).N0.53O of 2002 and W.P.(C ) No.221 of 2002. Subsequently, these writ petitions were delinked from the aforesaid writ petitions. (2006) 2 scc 677 : (2006) (Cri) 678: AIR 2006 sc 1322 (1996) 11 SCC 582: 1997 SCC (Cri) 303, (2004) 7 scc 768 z 2005 see (ca) 404 (2006) 4 scc 359 : (2006) 2 scc (out) 310 [2006) 5 SCC'733 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri.) 63 (2006) 12 scc 229: (2007) 1 sec (Cri) 684 z AIR 2006 sc 3376 4 8. The writ petitions are finally disposed of with the ollowing directions: (1) I any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials in registering th FIR, the modalities contained in section 190 read with section 200 0f the code are to e adpted and observed. (2) It is open to any person aggrieved by the inaction -of the police officials to adopt the remedy in terms of the aforesaid provisions. (3) So far as non-grant of santion aspect is concerned, it is for the Government concerned t deal With the prayer. The Government concerne would do well to deal with the matter Within three months from the date of recptof this order. (4) We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on th erits of the case.” Further in Sakiri Vasu — Vs- State at Uttar Pradesh (2008) 2 Sugeme Court Cases 409 the Apex Court held vide paras 26, 27 8r, 28 as follows: 26. If a erson has a grievane that his FIR has not been registered by the Police Station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police u/ s 154(3) CrPC or other police officer referred to in Section 36 f CrPC. If despite approaching the Supeintendent of Police or'the officer referred to in section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a rit petition 0r a petition under section 482 CrPC. oreover, he has a further remedy of fing a criminal complaint under section 200 CrPC. y then should wit pitions or Sectio 482 petitions be entertaine when there are so many alternative remedies ? 27. s we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide owers to direct registration W.P(Cr). No.7521/2009 f f e b o c o d ei e m p c r M w li Wh r et n d A p 5 W.P1 Cr). No.7521/2009 ; of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 CrPC simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the Police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under sections 36 8t 154(3) before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under section 200 CrPC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC. 28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere. In View of the above discussion, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition for issuance of a writ to the Police authorities to register the FIR. The writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed summarily. However, the petitioner shall be at, liberty to avail the other appropriate remedies in accordance with law. With the above observation/direction, this petition stands finally disposed of at the motion stage itself. / sdf’ “ /