1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1832 of 2010 Date of decision: 31.8.2010 Joginder Singh ….. Petitioner. Vs. The State of H.P. and others ……Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Petitioner : Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Y .S. Thakur vice Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, Advocate for respondent No.4. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:- “Direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to register the FIR on the basis of written statement made by the petitioner in the presence of his brother-in-law, Om Parkash, in the Tanda Hospital on 23.11.2009 as also the written complaint made by his son. Rakesh Kumar, on 2.12.2009 and investigate the matter in accordance with law.” 2. In the reply furnished on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, it is stated in para 1 of preliminary objections as follows:- “That the petitioner was medically examined by M.O.. RPGMC Tanda who issued MLC No. 552/09 and the said M.O. found the two injuries on his person and he described these injuries simple in nature which did not constitute any 2 prima facie case of cognizable nature and due to this reason Kalandra u/s 107/150, 145 Cr.P.C. was presented before SDM Dehra, Distt. Kangra, HP which is still pending. That the injured was medically examined by the Dr. Harsh Verdhan Singh M.O., RPGMC Tanda (Kangra) and on the police application he issued the MLC No. 552/09 and on the day of examination i.e. 23rd Nov., 2009, the said M.O. reserved his opinion for want of Radiologist report. On 11.12.2009 the said M.O. opined on the said MLC that as per Radiologist’s report on X-Ray N. 66 dated 08.12.2009 there is no fracture seen in the part of X-Rayed hence injuries No. 1 and 2 are simple in nature. As per the said MLC no prima facie case of cognizable nature was constituted hence the replying respondents were unable to register the FIR as per the provisions of law. It is pertinent to mention here that as no cognizable offence was disclosed as per the opinion of the M.O., due to this reason the replying respondents set the criminal machinery into motion in accordance with the basic provisions of criminal law and Kalandra/Complaint u/s 107/150, 145 Cr.P.C. was prepared by the Police Post Sansarpur Terrace (PS Dehra, Distt. Kangra, HP) and presented in the court of SDM Dehra, Distt. Kangra HP against respondent No.4 which is still pending in the same court.” 3. In case the petitioner is not satisfied with the steps thus taken in the matter as to the submissions in the affidavit, it is for the petitioner to approach the Magistrate of competent jurisdiction. Without prejudice to such liberty, this petition is closed. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice Kuldip Singh) Judge August 31, 2010 (grs/pankaj)