HKiH COIJRT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR PKTITIONER RRSPONDENTS V«rRITPETITION No. 1101 of2004 Banatarlal Kuire, S/o Hiralal Kurre. aeed 52 vears, occupatioti Cultivator, R/u Village Uuantal, Fost Dagori, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through'ffie Principal Secretary, -* DepaTuiieatofHoiue,DKSBliawai'i,Raipi*r(CG). '"''• • 2. Inspector General ofPoliee Chhattisearh, Raipur CCG). j. ciupei'luieuactll 01 i-'OuCe, &aipiu" (,*-;U}. 4. Station House Qfficer, Police Station Simga, District Raipur (CG). 5. Noharlal Sonwani, S/o Mitthulal Soawani. aged 25 ycais, r/o LIiBtara, Police Statloii Sunga, Tslisil Baloda Bazar, Disb-ictRaipur (CG). 6. MittliulaS Soiiwaiii S/o not kiiowii, r/o village Limtartt, Police Statioa Simga, Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Raipia- (CG). 7. Katik Bai, W/o Mitthulal Sonwani, r/o villaee Limtara Policc Statiou Sunga, Talisil Baloda Bazai', Disu'ict Raipur(CG). o. Mauioharlal Soiiwaiii S/o M.ittliulai Soiiwaiii, x'/o village Limtara Police Station Simea, Tahsil Baloda Bazar, Disu-ictRaipur(CG). WRIT PE'nTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF 1HE CONS'HTUTION OF IN'DIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenfliotri. J. Present: Shri Siddarth Rathod with Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocates tbr the petitioaer. Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General for the State. ORALORDER (Passcd on 6th day ofFcbniiB>', 2009} With the consent of'the parties, the matter is taken up forhearing fimally. 1. Leamed counsel appearing tbr the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ^aggrieved by the inaction on the part of tUe poliee authorities for not investieating the complaint of the petitioner, properly. The petitioner naade application dated 14.12.2003 (Amiexure P/l & P/5) before the concemed Police Authorities by raising his all arievanees, but they have not taken any action. Thus, the Police Authorities are not taking any interest on the matter and not proceedmff. with the aoolications ofthe petitioner. > i;li I/ 2. In this resard, law is very clear. If the Police Station is not recording the iutbrmation as referred ffl sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (fbr short 'theCr.P.C."), complamt can be made to the Superintendent of Police of the District cnicemed. Even if the Superintendent of Police fails to take any aetion, the complainaat can take recourse to provisionofSection 190 read with Section 200 oftfae Cr.P.C. 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in tfae matter of Aleune Fadamsee and others Vs. Unlen of India and others held that "if any person is aggrieved by the inactionofthe police officials in reeisterins the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed." 4. In the matter of Saiari Vasu vs. State ef U.P. and others?, the Hon'ble <- Supreme Court observed as under : "ll....we would like to state that ifa person has a aievance tliat ths police station is not rcgisteriiig liis FIR uuder Seetion 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Supermtendeut ofPolice utider Sectioii 154 (3) Cr.P.C., by ati application iti wriluig. Even iffhat does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense fSaat eiflier tlie FIR is still not icgistei'ed, ui' tiiat evai after reeisterins it no proper investieation is held, it is opea to tfae aggrieved p&isou to filc uii applicatiosi uiider Sectioii 156 (3) Cr.P.C.. betbre the leamed Maeistrate concemed. U" such an application uiider S<setioii 156 (3) is ill&d bc&rc uic Magistrate, the Maeistratecaa direct the FIRto be reeistered and also caa dit'ect a proper investigatioa to be made, in a case where, accordine to fheaggrieved person, no proper investieation was niade. Tlie Magisu'ate eau also urider tlie saaie provisioa monitor the mvestieation to ensure a proper investieation. 17. Iti our opinio&Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to iticluue all sucli puweis it'i a Magisti'atc which tti'e necessaiy foi' ensurine a prooer investieation, and it includes the power to ordei- registratiou of an F.I.R. and of oi'dering a proper investigation tf the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper iiivestigation has not been done, or is not being done by flie police. Section 156 C3) Cr.P.C., thoueh briefly worded, in our opuiiou, is very wide aiid it will iiielude all sach iacidental powers as are neeessarv for ensuring a proper iavestigatiou." ; (2uu/) 6 BUl- 171 2 (2008) 2 SCC 409 int Sahu Sf 5. In the matter of LaUta Kumari Vs. Govennnent of Uttar Pradesh and others, also the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterates the afbresaidview. 6. SufBcientsafeguards are given in the Cr.P.C., therefbre,if any,grievance exists the petitioner may approach iirstly, fhe Superiatendeiit ofPolice ofthe District concemed and; Ihereafter, to the CourtofJudicial Magistiate under the provisions of Section 190 read with Sections 200 to 203 and olfaer provisi<»s ofthe Cr.P.C. 7. Bi view ofthe above, without expressing any opiaion on the merits ofthecase, fhe petition stands disposed of. — i Sd/- ; Satish K. Agnihotri Judge II ; l': li^ 11: