HIGH COUR‘S‘ OF CHHATTESGARH: BILA$PUR Writ Petition {CR} No. 6487 0f 2fm8 Bombav Gtass & Chemica§ Works, 12 T%fra indusma! Estate, Tifra Biiaspur through Soie Pmprietcr Rajendra Oiha, S/o. Laée $hri Chhedi La! O}ha, aged aboui 52 yeaw, R/o. Gppusite Si. Zavier 8choo§, Biiaspur, District BHaspur (CG). Petitioner Versus Resmndents 1. State of Chhattisgarh through $ecretary, Heme Departmant‘ D.K.S. Ehawan. Ra§pur (CG). 2. Director General of F’oiice, Raipur (CG). 3. Inspecwr General of PoHce, Raipm‘. Range Raipun Disirict Raipur {CG}. 4. Superintendent of Poiice, Raipur, Disirict Raipur (CG). 5. Station House Qfficer, Poke $tation, Tikrapara, Raipur (CG). 6. Chhattisgam Tax Book Corporation, Raipur thrcugh Managing Difector, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (CG). 7. Bharat Kumar Kataria. S/o. Late Shri Vishram Bhai Kataria, aged about 49 years, R/o. C408. Om Campiex, Phaphadih, Raépur, Prc-prietor, Nils. Pyashant Chemicai and Scientic Wcrks, Behind J.K. Steei, Second Fwor. Bhaisthan, Agrasen Chowk Road. Raipur (CG). 8. Smt. Harsha Ben, Wis. Shri Bharat Kumar Kataria, aged about 45 years. Propi'ietor, M/s. Mamta Marketing Raipur, Rio. (3-108, Om compiex, Phaphad§h, Raipur (CG). Q. Lakhan La! Sahu. S/c. $hr‘i Kunjéai Sam},- aged abw: 30 years, Ck). M’s. Praghant Chemical & scientSc Work, R/e. Behme J.K. Steei. $econd Fioor, Bhaisthan, Agrasen Chewk Road, Raipur (CG). Arun Kumar Yadav, Propi’ietcr, M/s. AS. Enterprises. Compbx Shep No.45. Near $tate Bank ATM 'Power Hcuse, Bhiiai. District Eurg (CG). (Wrii PetEiion under Article 226 of Constitutéon cf India) SB: Hen’bie ML Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Mr. RP. Tnpathx, ccunse! for the petztsc‘ney. Mr. Aiak Bakshi. Govt Advacafé forthe Staté. GRAL CRDER {Passed on this 215‘ day of Nevamber, 2mm 4( Learned counset appearing for the petiticner submits that an the basis of the omer issued by the respondent No.6 the petiiiener suppiied variaus schooi materiais to the tune of Rs.52,17,886/— to d§fferent schools situated in the State. Thereafter? the petitioner {aised the bitts fer payment, but the same have not been reteaeed. According to the petttioner, the respondent No. 6 ts in cottiston with some otherfespondents prepared some forged & fake buts. The petttioner made severat complaints against the respondents Not '1’ to it} before the Poiice authoarities. tnspite of severai complaints made by the petitioner; the Poiice authorities have not taken any action. Thus, the Poiice Officers are not taking any interest in the matter and not proceeding with the compiaints of the petitioner. 2) in this regard, iaw is very ciear. if the Poiice Station ie not recording the information as referred in sub-section (1) of iteotion 154 of the Code of Criminat Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”), compiaint can be made to the Superintendent of Police of the iDistriot concerned. Even it the Superintendent of Police fails to take any action, the oompiainant can take recourse to ptovision of $ection 190 \read with Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. \\ \\¥ -3/ 3) The Hon’ble $upreme Court in the matter of Ateque Padamsee and oihers Vs. Union of India and others1 heid that “if any persen is aggrieveci by the inaction of the police officials in registering ihg HR, the modaii‘iies contained in Section 190 read with Section 2&0 of the Cade are to be adopted and observed.” 4) in the matter of Sakiri Vase vs. state of UP. and othere2, the Hon‘bie Supreme Court observed as under : “11....We wouid !ike to s$ate that if a person has a grievance that the yoiice sta‘oon is not reg§stering his FIR unda' Section 154 Cr.F’.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 1S4 (3) Cr.P.C., by an appHoation in wriring‘ Everi if that does not yield any eatrsfactory resort in the sense that either the FIR ie etiit not registereo, or that even after registering it no groper investigattoh to heid, it is open to the aggrieved person to fite an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., before the learned Magietrate oonoerned‘ if such an appiioation under $eotion 156 (3) is itted before the Magistrate, the Magietrate can direct the FtR to be regietered 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 the investigation to ensure a proper investigation. 1?. in our opinion $ection .156 {3) Cr.P.C‘ is Wide enough to include eii such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it inciudes the power to order registration of an ELR and of ordering a proper investigation ii the Magistrate is eatistied that a prooer i i 2 {2007} 8 SCC 'iT'i (2008) 2 SCC 409 0 I investigation hais not been done, ar is mt being done by the police. Sect§0n 156 (3) Cr.P.C., though briefky warded, in gun" opiman, §s vary wide arid §t M2 include aH such incidenta£ powers as are nece3sary for- ensurmg a iiroper investigation.” 5) in the matter of Lama Kumari Vs. Gavernmant 0f Uttar Pradesh and othersi also the Hon’bie $upreme Ceurt reiterates the aforesaid view. 6) $ufiicien£ safeguards are provided in the Cr.P.C., therefore, if any, grievance exists the petitioner may appreach iiretiy, the Superintendent of Poiice of the §3istrict concerned and; thereafter, te the Court of Judiciai Magistrate under ihe provisions of $eciion wO read with Sections 200 to 203 and other provisions of the CrPWCq if Poiice is not registering FIR on the compiaint of the petitioner. 7) V in View of the above? Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition stands disposed of. Sdl— Judge \‘atish K. Agnihotri Raiu 3 {2008) 7 SCC 154 S