'31 H16H COURT OF CHHAmSGARH: BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 1062 of 2005 Puja Giipta, W/o.Santosh Gupta Ram, aged about 28 years, residerit of vliiage New Bue Stand Pendra Disfrint Biiasnur (CG). of State Department of Hoine D.K.SBuilding Ralpur(CR). rtlsgarh, Secretary, Affairs 2. The pirector General of Police, State of Chhatfigynrh, Police Headquarter, Raipur, Tahsii and District Raipur (CG). 3. The Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG). 4. 0/Vrit petition leB Station House Officer. Police Station, Pehdra, District Bilaspur (CG). Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Annihotri, *l. Shri Rtehf Rahijl Soni, Advocate appears on bfthalf of Shri Arun Kochar, counsei fnrthe petitloner. Sbri Shashank Thakur, Pane! l-^wi/w for fhft Stste. (Passed on this 23 day of October, 2008} i.earned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has fiied complaints i.e. Annexures-PI and P/2 before the Poiice Authorities, but th®Police authorities have not taken any action on the reports of the petitioner. Thus, the Police Officers ars not taking any ihters'st in the matter and not proceeding with the complalnts of the petitioner. 2) In this regard, law is very dear. If the Poitee Station is not reftording the informafion as referred in sub-section (1) e>f Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedur®,1973 (for short "the Cr P.C "), complalnt can b° made to the Sunerintendent nf Police of the Dsstricf con-'~erned. Even jf the SuDerintendent of Poltee fails to tske anv action, the compSainant can tgke recourse to provision nf Section 190 read with Section 200 ofthe Cr P.C If-minit.,vfv- T WT 7 ^ - 2- 3) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the mattec of Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of Indis and others heid that "!f any person is aggrieved bythe inaction ofthe police officiais in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 1 90 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and obseroed." 4) In the matter of Sakiri Vasu vs. Stste of U.P. snd others , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "11 ...we wou!d liks to state that if a person has a grievance tbat the police station is not renistering his FIR'under Section 1S4 C'.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendei-ii of Pollce under Section 154 (3) Cr.PC., by an appiteation in writiny. Even if that does not yield any satlsfectory resuit in the ssnse that eithei the FiR is stiii tiut regjsiered, oi that even after reglstering it no nroper investigation is he!d, it is open to tiie agyrieved person tu fiie an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P C., before the iearned Magistrate concemed. !f such an application under Section 156 (3) is fiied before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and aiso can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieyed person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation. 17 In our opinion Section 156 (3) Cr PC is wide enough to include ail such powers in a Magjstrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and Et ineludea the power to order regist'ration of an F.1 R and of ordenng a proper investigation if the Magistiate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opinion, is vei-y wide and It wili in'dude ai! such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation." 5) jn" the matter of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradssh arsd others , a!so the Hon'b!®Supreme Court reitsrates the aforesaid view. 1E2007)6SCC171 -' f2008) 2 SCC 409 •:'(200S;?SCC164 <<^"""^:"'"'^ a ®-;:'^'r^ y %,".••••"% '^ •? fi) SufFicient safeguarcls are given in the Cr.P.C.. therefor®,if any, grievance exists the petitioner may approach firstly, the Sijperintendei of Police of the Distrit~i concerned and' thereafter. to the Court of Judicia! Magistrate under the provisions of Section 190 read with Section 200 ofthe Cr.P C 7) For the foregoing reasons, the petition stands rjisposed of. Consequentiy, I.A.No.2013 of 2005 also stands d.isposeri of. Sd/- satish K. Agnihotri >. Judge '%.