37o “ - gg ; HaGH seam or wmwgwimspw WW Wr§€ Petition {CR} NO. 6456 of 2$O8 glgg Dhankunwal Chauhan! W. Raraw Chauhan, ’o. Nammu Chauhan, aed about 45 yers, rlo. Viiéage Sukuipara, Kharaud: Police Station: Pamgarh, Disirini Jam‘gir-C‘nampa {CG}. figs‘ggndents &- State of ChmSgarh, ihreugh Sscretary, Department of Home, D.K.5. Bhawan! Raipur, District Raiur (CG). 2. The Coliector, Janjgir, District éanir— Champa {CG}. 3. The Superintendent of Poiéce, Janjgii, D§stri¢t JanjgiraChamp'a (CG). 4. The Poiice Station: Pagarh, Dismct Janigirahamga (C thraugh it5 {Efficerpin-charge. r (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of Constitutian of mdia) SB: Hon’bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihori, .5. §"i§§K"ii“E‘‘i'Eé‘fif ‘ “ Prese:t':‘”“iii?5'éiéWEré‘éifE’iiBéi’iéiiéf Mr. Vii’iay Hrit, a Deputy Advocate Gei‘serai for the $te ta. ORAL ORDER (Passad an this 2W day of November“ 298$) Learned counsei appeing fur ihe petiiiGner submits that the getitioner is a iagai heir of iate R¢hini Bai, who was the owner of the {and bearing Patwari Haika N027, situaied viiiage Shukiupara, District Janjgir-Champa. After the death of iaie Rohini Bai, some gaersans nameiy Yogendra Singh, Horiiai, Mohan F’yare, Ramvaii and Haii Mohan have eniered their names in the revenue recorde of the iand oi deceased Rohini Bei in a frauduient mannef for which the petitioner made severe; compiain‘ts betore the Poiice authorities, tnspite of several eompiainte made by the petitioner, the Poiice authortties have \ Petiig K f g a Versus ha p jg m G) i ar ‘§\ mt taken any action. Thus, the Felice Officers are not takfng any interest in the matter and not proceeding w§th the compiaints of the petitionea 2) in this regard; haw is very ciear. if the Poliee $ta’tion is net reeording the information as referred in sub-section (1) cf $eciion 154 of the Code of Criménai Procedure, 1973 (for short “ine Cr.P.C.”), complaint can be made to the Suoerintendenr of Peirce of the metréct concerned. Even if rhe Superintendent of Porice fairs to take any astron: the compsainant can take recourse f0 provreiori of Seoiion 'IQG read with Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. 3} The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Neque Paoameee and others Vs“ imion of indie and others‘ held ihat “if any person “as aggrieved by the rnaction of the porice officrars in registerrng the HR, the modarities contained in Section 190 read with Sectron 200 of the Code are ’ro be adopted and observed.” 4) in the matter of Sakir! Vasu vs. State 9f LRP. ane others? the Hon’bie Supreme Court observed as under : “Hunwe would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the gaollce station is not regieterlng hte FIR under 3ectlon t54 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Supertntendent of Police under Section 154 {3) CLPID.‘ by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FtR is stiil not registered, or that even after registering it no proeer investigation is held; it is open to the aggrieved person to fiie an aopiication unoer Section “£56 \ (3} CrP.C., before the teamed i (20o?) e soc m '1 {2008) 2 sco 409 Magistrate concerned. If such an app!§cat§ari under oectian §56 (3) is fi§ed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can d%rect the FzR ta be registered and also can direct a pmper investigation ta be made, in a case where, accordrng ts the aggrieved person, no proper investigatien was made The Magistrate can also under the same provisian monitor the investigation to ensure a pyer investigatian‘ 1?. in our opinion ction 156 (3) CrPiC. is wide enough to inciude ali such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it inciudes the power to order registration of art Ftr‘t, and of orring a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done: or is not eing done by the police Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., though briefiy worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it wilt inctude aii such incidentai powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.” 5) in the matter of Laiita Kumari tis. Government of tittar Pradesh and others“, also the Hon’bie Supreme Court reiterates the aforesaid View. 6) Sufficient safeguards are provided in the ShP‘Cq therefore, if any, grievance exists the petitioner may approach tirstiy, the Superintendent of Poiice of the District conceed and; thereafter, to the Court of Judiciai Magistrate under the provisions of Section 19o read with Sections 200 to 203 and other provisions of the Cr.P.C., if Police is not registering FIR on the compiaint of the petitioner“ ?} in View of the above, without expressing any opinion on the erits of the case, the petition stands disposed of. 3: (zoos) 7 soc m4 ra $e de b rn m