IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-35728 of 2010 Date of decision : 06.12.2010 Bachan Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others ….. Respondents Present : Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. According to the petitioner he was present at his house on 23.2.2010 along with his family members and son namely Kuldip Singh. At about 11.00 p.m. it is alleged that respondents No.4 to 6 entered his house along with some unidentified persons and started beating the son of the petitioner namely Kuldip Singh. They also broke his left leg. The petitioner and his family members saved Kuldip Singh from the assailants with great difficulty; otherwise, they might have killed him. After receipt of injuries Kuldip Singh was taken to Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran and his medico-legal examination was got conducted. The injury was kept under observations and X-ray was advised by the doctor. After X- ray examination, the medico-legal report was sent to Police Station Tarn Taran on 17.3.2010. The petitioner submitted an application on 24.2.2010 (Annexure P2) to the SHO Police Crl. Misc. No. M-35728 of 2010 [2] Station City Tarn Taran (respondent No.2). The petitioner himself gave medico-legal report to the SHO but the Police did not take any action against the accused. The petitioner also gave an application (Annexure P4) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran (respondent No.2) on 12.7.2010 but no action has been taken. It is, therefore, prayed that direction may kindly be issued to respondents No.2 and 3 to investigate the matter and take action against respondents No.4 to 6. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it may be noticed that the primary grievance of the petitioner is for registration of FIR against respondents No.4 to 6 and for taking action against them. In this regard it may be noticed that in Aleque Padamsee and others v. Union of India and others, (2007) 6 SCC 171 (SC), it was observed that the correct position in law is that the Police officials are to register a FIR whenever the facts brought to the notice show that cognizable offence has been made out. In case the Police officials fail to do so, the modalities to be adopted are set out in Section 190 read with Section 200 CrPC. Therefore, if a person is aggrieved by the inaction of Police officials in not registering a FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 CrPC are to be adopted and followed. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP and others, 2008 (1) RCR (Crl.) 392 (SC) it was observed by the Supreme Court that if a person has a grievance that the Police Station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 CrPC, then he can Crl. Misc. No. M-35728 of 2010 [3] approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC by an application in writing. Even if that does not lead to any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is not registered or even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file such application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and can also direct proper investigation to be made in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. However, a petition under Section 482 CrPC for directing the registration of a FIR is to be done only in some rare and some exceptional cases. In the present case, the petitioner has his remedy of approaching the Magistrate in case there is inaction on the part of the Police in not taking action on his applications (Annexures P2 and P4). In the circumstances, the petitioner if so advised, may avail his other remedies as available to him in accordance with law. The Crl. Misc. petition is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE December 06, 2010 amit