y\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Wnt Petition Np, 1848 of 2002 Petitioner Tribal WeUare Sociely, a non Goveraxiiental Organization duly registered uiider Indiau Societies Act XXI 1860 bearing Registration No. S-25594 dated 1.3.94 havmg its registered ofB.cc at New DeUu-23 and the Chhattisgarh State Braiich at L-2, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur (CG) represented by its Incharge Shri ishwar Prasad Dhruw. ^ Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. State of Chliattisgarh, fhrough Principal Secretary, Departnient of Hom.e, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raipur(C.G.) State of Orissa through its Prmcipal Secretary, Departnient of Home, Maatralaya, Bhubaiieshwar (Orissa) Director General of PoUce, Chliattisgadi, Raipur. Superuitendent of Police, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) ; Coiiuiussioaer (Excise), Chhatdsgarh, Raipur. CoUector, Raigarh, Distaict Raigarh (Chliattisgarh) CoUector, Distnct Jharsuguda, Jharsuguda (Orissa) Supermtendeiit of PoUce, Dist. Jharauguda (Orissa) Dircctor General of PoUce, Orissa, Bhubaaeshwar. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Amrito Das, Advocate for ftie petitioner. Shri Artm Sao, Govt. Advoeate for the respondents. ORDBRIorall (Passed on tliis 10thdayofAugust, 2009) Heard. 1. Learued counsel appearmg for fhe petitioner submits that several persons are engaged ia smuggltng out iUicit liquor causicig teagedies. Despite the best efforts of the petitioiier no action has been taken agaiust the wrougdoers. On query asto whefher cases have been lodged wifh the police againstl the j ''^St^^fi 15,C-S^ w persons engaged ia committ'ing crimtual activities, it appears that nothuig has been done on the part of the petitioner, except to ffle fhis writ petition. 2. What wiU be fhe proper course ia such cases where crimiaal activities are goiag on unabated, aad the police is not •taldo.s aay action to curb fhe illegal activities, the petitioner should file a report/coinplamt witii the police. The Hon'ble SupreEae Court iu. Aleque Padamsee aad %thers Vs. Uaion of India and others1 m. para 7 aad 8 held as under :- " 7. Whenever aay information is received by fhe poU.ee about the aUeged coiuinission of offence which is a cognizable one there is a duty to register the FIR. There caa be no dispute on fhat score. The only question is wheftier a writ can. be issued to the pblice authorities to register the same. The basic quesnon id as to what course is to be adopted if the potice does not do it. As was held iu AU ludia Institute of Medical Scieuces case and re-iterated ia GaagadhaT case the reiaedv available is as set out above by filiug a coniplaint befoi-e the Magistrate. Though it was fauitly suggested fhat ttiere was conftict in the views ia AIl India lustitute of Medical Sciences case, Gaagadhar case, Hari Sin.gh case, Miu.u Kuinari case aad Rainesh Kuinari case, we fuid tiiat the view expressed ui Raniesh Kumari case related to fhe action required to be taken by fhe potice when any cognizable oflence is brouglit to its notice. In Ramesh Kuinari case the basic issue did not i-elate to fhe laethodology to be adopted which was expressly dealt wifb. m. AU India lustitute of Medical Sciences case, Gaiigadhar case, Miau Kuniari case asd Hari Siagh case. The view expressed iu Rainesh Kuniari case was re-itei-ated ia Lalla.il Chaudhar\r V. State of Bihar. The coiirse available, when fhe police does not carry oilt fhe statutoi^7 requii^inents under Section 154 was direcfly io. issue in AU India Institate of Medical Sciences case, Gangadhar case; Hari Singb. case aiid Miau Kuinari case. The correct position in law, fberefore, is that the potice ofBcials ought to register ttie FIR whenever facts brought to fheir notice show fhat cognizable oifence has been inade out. In case tbe poli.ee of&cials fail to do so, fhe inodalities to be adopted ai'e as set out tn Section 190 read witfa Section 200 of fhe Code. It appeai-s that in the piiesent case initiatly fhe case was tagged by order dated 24.2.2003 with WP (C) 530/2002 and WP(C) 221/2002. Subsequeatiy, fhese writ petitions wei^ de-Unked frora fhe aforesaid writ petitions. 8. The writ petitions are finaUy disposed of with the foUowiag directions: {(2007) 6 SCC 171} i.iMt •"i!®fi. 1 uv 1 3 (1) Ifany person is aggrieved by fhe iaaction ofthe police of&cials ia registermg the FIR, the ruodalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted aiid observed. (2) It is open to any person aggrieved by the iaaction of fhe police ofBcials to adopt tbe reinedy in tenns of the aforesaid provisions. (3) So fai' as noii-grant of saactioa aspect is coacerued, it is for the govemiuent concemed to deal wifh fbe prayer. The goveninient concemed would do weU to deat wifh the inatter withia fhree month§ from the date of receipt of this order. (4) We luake it clear that we have not expressed any opiaiou on fhe inerits ofthe case." The above view was refened approviiigly ia Sahui Vasu Vs. ;2 4, In \dew of fhe above, the petition is disinissed as aot laaiataiaable. However, as prayed, liberty is resei-ved to the petitioner to take recourse to the altemative foruin tliat m.ay be avaflable under provisions oflaw, ifso advised. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge