^- Vy^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPBnTIO UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA W.P. fCr.)No.SSS3 /II PETITIONERS \4^ ..ywr\y ^^w ^/^y ^y/ <// RESPONDENTS: - / ^ 1) Chhannak Ram Markam S/o Late Paras Ram Markara, Aged about-65 years, By Caste-Gond (S.T.). 2) Jhunni Bai Wife of Chhannak Rain Markam, Aged about-50 years, By Caste-Gond (S.T.). ^3) RajaniWd/oRajuSidar, Aged about-25 years, By Caste-Gond (S.T.). 4) Durgesh S/o Chhannak Ram Markam, Aged about-17 years, By Caste-Gond (S.T.), Minor through mother Jhunni Bai, All R/o Mangla, Police Station- Civil Lines Bilaspur, Tahsil & District-Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus ^l) State of Chhattisgarh Acting through, District Magistrate Bilaspur (C.G.) 2) Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, (C.G.) 3) Town Inspector, In-Charge Civil Lines Police Station Bilaspur, (C.G.) ]Af^^ WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WMT / WMTS DIRECTION/DIRECTIONS.ORDER/ORDERS^C. rf 1T . ^-— '"% '«'S..-^'il>, '? l^. ^s<y^//^ '^^-.s HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON (Cr.) No. 3833 of2011 PETmQNER RE8PQNDENTS Chhaimak Ram Markam & Otfaers. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OFINDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Sattsh K. AfinMiotri. J. Present: Shri K.A.Ansari, Senior Advocate with Shri Devesh Kela, Advocate for the petitionei^. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Govemmexrt Advocate for the State/respondente. ORDERCORAL) (Passed on 18U1 day ofJuly, 2011) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for tiie petitioner submits fhat tfae petitioner has made a complaint to the police aufhorities to register an FJ.R. against the accused person. However, even after registration of Ifae F.I.R. no action has been taken against the accused person till date by tfae respondent aufhorities. 2. The Supreme Court, in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & others , while considering fhe situation wherein tfae police station or fhe Superintendent of Police has tailed to perfbrm tibeir duties, observed as under: "11. In fhis connection we would like to state that if a person has a gdevance that the police staticm is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., Ifaen he caxi approaeh fhe Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C., by an application m wdting, Evon iffhat does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even aJfter registering it no proper investigatioti is held, it is opexi to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., before the leamed Magistrate concemed. If such an ! (2008) 2 SCC 409 /^•i "^ ^ / f1 &. -;;'"";:'^;'^ :-^ j':?.^/-'?;s% " '^. ferl-';->-£':-,f?"' .1^- 41 2 application under Section 156(3) is filed before Ihe Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor fhe mvestigation to ensure a proper investigation," Admittedly, the petitioner has not talcen recourse to the provisions ofsection 156(3) ofthe Cr.P.C. by making an applicatiim to the Magistrate concemed for appropriate action on tfie complaints of the petitioner. Thus, at fhis stage, it would not be proper to mterfere with fhe matter m exercise of \wit jurisdiction when fhe proper and effective forum of making an application/complaint before the magistrate under fhe provisioiis oftiie Code ofCriminal Procedure, is available. Without expressing any opinion on merits ofthe case, the petition is disposed of wifh liberty reserved to fhe petitioner to take appropriate steps as advised under fhe provisions oflaw m the light offhe legal pro(X)sitions as laid down by fhe Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu (supra). Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit