^ •••t ..< i,> \- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR V,TUT PETITION f0 No. 4482 of20< PE'riTlONER : P. Sitaram S/o P. Nagama, aged about 56 years, R/o Babji Nagar, Tifi-a, Tehsil & District Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh through, Seeretary, Home (Police) DKS Bhawan, Maiitralaya, Raipur (CG). 2. Umon oflndia through, General Manager, South Eastem Ceiitral RaiSway Bilaspur (CG). 3. Divisional Rail Manager SEC Railway, Bilaspur (CG). 4. Superintendent of Police Govemment of Railway Police Bilaspur (CG). 5. Senior Superintendent ofPolice, BiSaspur (CG). 6. Collector,Bilaspur(CG). 7. Naresh Agrawai S/o Sitaram Agrawal, aged about 50 years R/o Old Power House Near Agrawal Dharamkanta Masturi Road BiSaspur (CG). 8. Satnam Sinsh Gandfai near Kashmir Tent Hoiise Opposite Gurodwara, Dayalband Bilaspur (CG). 9. Gopal KaKkad, Jalaram Icecream Parlow Ja^nal Chowk Bilaspur (CG). 10. Jaspal Singh Rana, Arya CoSony Yadunandan Nagar, Tifi-a, Bilaspur (CG). 11. Tajeudra Singh Bali (Raju Bali) 27 Klioli Near Hanuman TempSe, Bilaspur (CG). WRir FETITION UlS'DER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITOTION OF IND1A SB: Hon'ble Shri Satjsh K. Aanihotri. J. Present; Shri A.K. Yadav, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri Shashaak Thakur, Panei Lawyer for the State. Smt. Naushina Alrin Ali, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 & 3. ORM.ORDER ~s (Passsd OR 31" day ofJanuar^', 2009) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 1. Leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the maction on the part of Ifae police autiiorities tbr not mvestigating the complaint of the petitioner, properly. The petitioner made applications dated nil (Annexure P/3, P/4, P/5 & P/6 coUy.) before the concemed Police Authorities by raising his all grievances, but they have not taken any action. Thus, the Police Aulfaorities are not takiiig any mterest on the matter and not proceeding with the applications ofthe petitioner. ••,ft:. ./ 'lr -1\^ <E?.. 2. Ia this regard, law is very clear. If flie Police Station is not recording the intbrmation as referred ia sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "tfae Cr.P.C."), complaint can be made to the Suoermtendent of Police of the Distnct concemed. Even if the Superintendent of Police fails to take any actioa, the complainant can take recourse to provision ofSection 190 read with Section 200 ofthe Cr.P.C. 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Aleque Padanisee aiid others Vs. Union oflndia and others held that "ifany person is agyieved b;/ the inaction ofthe police ofticials in registeriag the FIR, fhe modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed." 4. In the matter of Saldri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others^, the Hoa'ble Supreme Court observed as under : "11....we would like to state that ifa person has a grievance that fhe police station is oot registering his FIR undsr Section .154 Cr.P.C., then he caa approach the Superintendent ofPolice under Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C., by aii applicatiou ia writiug. Even it' that does not yield any satisfactory result in Ihe sense that either the FIR is stiU not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigatioa is held, it is opea to tfae aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., before the leamed Magistrate concemed. If such an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before flie Magistrate, ffae Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case -whei-e, according to the aegrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate cati also under tiie same provision momtor the investigation to ensure a proper mvestigation. 17. In oiu- opinion Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to mclude all such powere in a Magistrate wirich are necessafy for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of ati F.I.R. and of ordering a proper investigation if' the Maaistrate is satisfied that a proper iavestigatioa has not been done, or is not being doae by the poliee. Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opinion, is v-ery wide and it will inciude all sueh inddental powers as are necessary for ensuring a propar investigation. ' (2007) 6 SCC 171 2 (2008) 2 SCC 409 ni 5. In the matter of Lattta Kumail Vs. Govemment of Uttar Pradesh and others, also the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterates the atbresaid view. 6. Sufficient sateguards are given in the Cr.P.C., therefore, if any, gievance exists the petitioner may approach tirstly, the Superintendent ot'Police ofthe District concemed and; fhereafter, to the Court of Judicial Ma^strate under the provisions of Section 190 read wrth Sections 200 to 203 and other provisions ofthe Cr.P.C. 7. in view oflfae above, without expressing any opinion on the merits ofthe case, the petition stands disposed of. 8. Consequently, M(W)P No. 3726/05, application for interim relief, stands disposed of. Satish K. Agmhotri Judge SaiEii i\ «-