•iaS!SS'WSi9-Ss^~^TIS^S»:•-: HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRn'PETmONfCr.iNO. 6682 OF 2008 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS 1. Aashish Kumar Guha, S/o Late M.N. Guha, aged about 63 years. 2. Smt. Rakhi Guha, W/o Ashish Kumar Guha, aged about 55 years. Both resident of Akbar Chal, tdgah Road, Masanganj, Bilaspur (CG). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, 1-lome & Police Affairs, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2 Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, Raipur (CG). 3. Inspector General of Poltee, Bilaspur Range, Bitespur (CG). 4. Superinteniaent of Poltee, Bilaspur 0jvision;Dis!jrk;tBilaspyr(CG), 5 Station HQtise Gffficer, Police Station Civil! yiiesi,; Bitaspur (C©). OA/ritpetiti6r<yndeFArticte226oftheeon^itutionoflndia) Single BencH: Hon'ble Shri satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri PraRash Tiwari, counsel for the petitioners. ShriA.S.I<^chhawaha, Dy. Adv General forthe State. ORAl.ORDER (Passed on this 2nd day of December, 2008) With ffie consent of tearned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that inspite ofrecording the Firet Information Report; the Police authorities are not taking any action against the cutprits, who atfacked the petitioners and looted theirhousehold arttdes &amQunfc Thus, the Police Officers are not taking any interest in the matter and ^cA proceeding with the First Intormation Report lodged by t|i6 pelitioners. ? 2-' 3) In this regard, law is very clear. If the Police Station is not recording the information as referred in sub-section (1) ofSection 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.P.C."), comptaint can be made to the Superintendent of Police of the District concerned Even if the Superintendent of Police fails to take any action, the complainant can take recourse to provision of Section 190 readwithSection200oftheCr.P.C. ^ 4) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of tndia and others hetd that ''if any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police offieials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 ofthe Code are to beadopted and observed." 5) In the matterof SakiriVasuvs. StateofU.P. and others^, the Hon'bleSupremeCourtobservedasunder: "11 .. .w»woyld lite to state that if a person has a grievancfe tliat the pottee station is not registering^Bis ^R,uncter Section 154 Cr.P.C., then ^he |ean atiitaroach the Superintendeht 6F Polics^l.fflcler Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C., by an application in writjng. Eyen if that does not yidd any satisfactory result inthe sense that eitherthe FIR is stilt not registered, 6r that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the ^grieved per^n to file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., before the leamed Magtstrateconcemed If such ah applfcationunder Sectipn 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can jJirect a proper investigation to be made, in a isase 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 inyestigation. 17. Inour opinion Section 156 (3) Cr.P.0. is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it 1(2007)6SGC171 2(2Q08)2SCC409 •3>- Gowri includes the power to order registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investjgation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incfdental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investfgation." 6) tn the matter of Lalita Kumari Vs. Govemment of Uttar Pradesh and others , also the Hon'ble Supreme Courtreiteratesthe aforesaid view. 7) SufRcient safeguards are given in the Cr.P.C., therefore.if any, grievance exists the petitioner may appraach firstly, the Superintendent of Police of the District concerned and; thereafter, to the Court of Judicial Magistrate under the provisions of Section 190 read with Sections 200 to 203 and other provisionsof the Cr. P.C. 8) In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits ofthecase, the petition stands disposed of. Consequently, I.A.No.1 also stands disposed of 9) Learned counsel for the petitioners submite that the alleged accused persons, as named by the petitioners in the F!R, are making regular threat to the petitioners. It is the responsibllity of the Poltee authorities to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners, if it is so, the potice authorities shall ensure security to the petitioners and their properties. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge (2008) 7 SCC 164