^^ / ^. ^.l_ -7. '") HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Cr.l No.39 of 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. Ghanshyam Singh Chandrawanshi, son of Shri Raghuwar Dayal Chandrawanshi, aged about 48 years, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Khudmudi, Block Berla, Tahsil Berla, DistrictDurg (C.G). Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G). Senior Superintendent District Durg (C.G). of Police, Station House Officer, P.8. Berla, District Durg (C.G). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA Appearance: . Mr. P. R. Patankar, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Sao, Government Advocate, for the State/ respondents on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (08.01.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J, Petitioner Ghanshyam Singh Chandrawanshi has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the respondents as even after making a complaint by him to respondents 2 & 3, the said respondents are not registering the First Information Report against the alleged accused persons. According to the petitioner, on the averments made in his written report an offence u/s 4 of the Protection of Civil Rights Acf, 1955 would be made out in this case. W.P('Cr.).No.39/2010 In Aleoue Padamsee and others -vs- Union oflndia and others, (2007) 6 SCC 171, 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 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 conflict 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(l), we find 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 Kumari case and Hari Singh case. The view expressed in Ramesh Kumari case was reiterated in Lallan Chaudhary V. State ofBihar (6). 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 policeofficials 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).No.530 pf 2002 and W.P.(C ) No.221 of 2002. Subsequently, these writ petitions were delinked from the aforesaid writ petitions. 1 (2006) 2 SCC 677 : (2006) (Cri) 678: AIR 2006 SC 1322 2. (1996) 11 SCC 582: 1997 SCC (Cri) 303 3. (2004) 7 SCC 768 : 2005 SCC (Cri.) 404 4. (2006) 4 SCC 359 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri.) 310 5. (2006) 5 SCC 733 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri.) 63 6. (2006) 12 SCC 229 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 684: AIR 2006 SC 3376 ^ii7'IjS;i';ffi?sftfi^Rt'R'S W.P('Cr.).No.39/2010 8. The writ petitions are finally disposed of with the following directions: (1) If any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in section 190 read with section 200 of the code are to be adopted and observred. (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 sanction aspect is concerned, it is for the Government concerned to deal with the prayer. The Government concerned would do well to deal with the matter within three months from the date of receipt of this order. (4) We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.?? Further in Sakiri Vcisu - Vs- State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 409 the Apex Court held vide paras 26, 27 8& 28 as follows: 26. <(If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the Police Station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent ofPolice u/s 154(3) CrPC or other police officer referred to in Section 36 CrPC. If despite approaching the Superintendent 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 writ petition or a petition under section 482 CrPC. Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under section 200 CrPC. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies ? 27. As we have already obsen/red above, the - \ Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation and for '< \ ^. >"v "i^^-^^'"' INN—M^ W.P('Cr.).No.39/2010 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 & 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. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Rao