^) '? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRTT PETmON No. 1729 of2004 Manbodhram Kosma (Thakur), S/o Shri Gabhlu Rani, aged 56 years^ R/o Bajrang Chowk, Tanki Maroda, P.0. Civie Centre, Bhilauiagar, Distt. Dyrg (CG). VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, tfarough 8ecr@tary, Home Dq^artment, DK8 Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. I.G. Police Deptt., Raipir (CO). 3. Superintendent of Pol^e, Distt. Dhamtari (CG). 4. Station Officer (Mr. Vani), P.8. Siliawa, Distt. Dhaiiitari (CG). WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTmJTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Sattsh K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri T.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Ajdvocate Genemlfbrthe State/respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on 18" day ofNovember, 2008) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that fhe petitioner is aggrievedby the inaction ofthe police authorities for not mvestigating the death ofhis son namely, Bajranglal Kosma, who was working as Constable in the Department ofPolice, properly. The petitioner made an application before the concemed Police Authorities by raising his all grievances, but they have not taken any action. Thus, the Police Authorities are not taking any interest on the matter and not proceeding with the application ofthe petitioner, 2) In this regard, law is very clear. Ifthe Police Station is not recording the information as referred in sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the Code of -Q- \ Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.P.C."), conq>laint can be made to fhe Superintendent of Police of the District concemed. Even if the Superintendent of Police fails to take any action, the complainant caii tafc^ recourse to provision ofSection 190 read with Section 200 ofthe Cr.P.C. 3) The Hon'bleSupreme Court in the matter ofAleque Padamsee aiid others Vs. Union of India and others1 held tihiat "if any person is aggrieved by the inaction ofthe police ofBcials in registering the FIR. the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 offhe Code are to be adopted and observed.9' 4) In tlie matter of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under : "11.. ..we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not regNera^ his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendeiat of Police undCT Section 154 (3) Cr-P.C., by an appdication in writing. Even iffhat does not yield ajriy satisfaetory result m the sense fhat eifher the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is beld, it is open to the aggraeved ? person to file an application under Seetion 156 (3) s Cr.P.C., befbre fhe leamed Magisfarate conoemed. Ifsuch an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before tiie Magistrate, tlie Magistrate caii djyrect the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper iirvestigation to be made, iti a ease Niere, according to fhe a^neved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can al^) under the same provision monitor the inveMigation to ensure a proper investigation. 17. In our opinion Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is wide enougli to mclude all such powers in a Magisttate which are necessary for ensurmg a proper investigatioti, aiid it includes the power to ord@r l(2007) 6 SCC 171 2 (2008) 2SCC 409 .^^ -3- Q. ••y \.'^ \.:^ 5) registration of an F.I.R. aad of orctering a proper investig^tion if fhe Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156 <3) Or.P.C., fhough briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide aiid it will mclude all such incidental powers as are necessary fbr ensuring a proper uwestigatioa.^ In the matter of Lalita Kumari Vs. Govemment of Uttar Pradesh and others, also the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterates the aforesaid view. 6) Sufficient safeguards are given in the Cr.P.C., therefore, if any, grievance exists tiie petitioner may approach firstly, the Superintendent of Police of fhe District concemed and; thereafter, to the Court of Judicial Magisbrate under the provisions of Section 190 read wifh Sections 20©to 203 and other provisions offhe Cr.P.C. 7) In view ofthe above, without expressing any opinion oti the meiits of the case, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Saliu