In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-5443 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:23.3.2009 Harjinder Kaur .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. B.S. Kathuria, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' - for short) for issuing directions to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner which it is alleged is in danger from the respondents. A further prayer has been made that an inquiry be got conducted from an independent agency for registration of false case against the petitioner as well as her son Gurpal Singh alias Pala. A still further prayer has been made for issuing directions to respondent No.1 to take action against the respondents for causing injuries to the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. As already noticed, the petitioner has made three-fold prayer, first is for issuance of directions to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner. In this regard, it may be noticed that the petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Misc. No.M-13315 of 2008 before this Court in which reply was filed by way of affidavit of Dharam Singh Uppal, PPS, DSP, Phillaur. It was stated in the reply that the petitioner was a habitual offender and she Cr. Misc. No.M-5443/2009 [2] along with her son and other family members had indulged in drug trafficking. The petitioner and her family members, it was stated, had been accused in 12 cases including under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (`NDPS Act' - for short) and Sections 224, 225, 353, 186, 332, 506, 341, 324, 323, 427, 148, 149 and also under Sections 454 and 380 IPC. It was stated that the petitioner was a previous convict and many other cases were pending against her and her family members. A list of these cases was appended as Annexure-R.1 in the reply to aforesaid Criminal Misc. No.M-13315 of 2008. In view of the said position, the following order was passed by this Court on 3.10.2008:- “Status report as sought by this Court vide order dated 23.5.2008 is on record. It is seen that the petitioner is a habitual offender and she along with her family members indulged in drug trafficking and there are cases under the N.D.P.S. Act also registered against the petitioner. Petition for seeking protection in such an eventuality is totally misconceived. Such a petition has been filed only for the purpose of misleading. Dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/- to be deposited in the accounts of Legal Services Authority, Punjab.” Therefore no directions are liable to be issued for protecting the life and liberty of the petitioner. The other prayer made is for getting an inquiry conducted from an independent agency for registration of false cases against the petitioner Cr. Misc. No.M-5443/2009 [3] as well as her son Gurpal Singh alias Pala and for taking action against the respondents for causing injuries to the petitioner. It is stated that after notice had been issued in the earlier Criminal Misc. No.M-13315 of 2008, the Police became more inimical towards the petitioner and on 19.12.2008 respondents No.2 to 7 raided the house of the petitioner and she as well as her minor son Gurpal Singh were dragged out of the house and the petitioner was given a beating. The petitioner and her son were booked in a false case under the NDPS Act and recovery of 12 Kgs. of poppy husk has been shown. The injuries were caused to the petitioner with a `Dang' by the Police officials and the hands of the petitioner were broken due to the `Dang' blow given by the Police officials. It is further alleged that when the Police officials raided her house the lock of her trunk was broken open by the Police officials in order to search. A sum of Rs.28,000/- which the petitioner had received as rent from the tenant of her shop and was lying in the trunk was taken. The petitioner was not produced in Court in time and was produced at the time of rising of the Court. This was done so that the petitioner could not express to the Court regarding the injuries caused to her by the Police officials. She was sent to the judicial lock-up and she was not medico-legally examined. The petitioner later moved an application dated 14.1.2009 (Annexure-P.3) to the SDM, Phillaur with the request and permission to get her medically examined from the doctor as well as to get treatment from Civil Hospital, Phillaur. The petitioner was examined on 16.1.2009 and her medical report (Annexure-P.4) has been placed on record. The petitioner, it is alleged, is continuously getting threats from the Police officials. Cr. Misc. No.M-5443/2009 [4] It may be noticed that nothing has been placed on record as to when the the petitioner was produced before the Court and neither the date of production in Court has been mentioned. There is no mention as to when and how long the petitioner remained in judicial lock-up. The medical report (Annexure-P.4) shows that the petitioner had made a complaint of being injured on her back, on the left thigh, wrist, right hand and also on left hand lateral side. X-ray and orthopaedic opinion was sought. No report of the X-ray or orthopaedic opinion has been placed on record. In the circumstances, it would be just and expedient that the petitioner if aggrieved against the inaction of the Police in not registering a case she may approach the Senior Superintendent of Police in terms of Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. If that also does not yield any result, she has the remedy to approach the concerned Magistrate in terms of Section 156(3) 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 not 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 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., Cr. Misc. No.M-5443/2009 [5] 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, a 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 her 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 her other remedies as available to her in accordance with law. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly disposed of. March 23, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*