'•f^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRFT PETmON (Cr.i N0.7141 OF 2(W8 PETmONER RESPONDENTS 2. 3. Smt. Keja Bai, widow of Late Shivduiare Suryawanshi, aged about 60 years, R/o village Madanfxir, P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (CG). Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (CG). Superintendent of Police, District Bilaspur (CG). Officer-in-charge, Pottee Stetlon Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (CG). (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitutton of IncUa) Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Smt. Meena Shastri, counsel for the prtitioner. Shri Vmay Harit, Dy. Advocate General forthe State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 17 day of November, 2008) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submtts that the accused persons went to the house of the petitioner, dragged her son namely, Brijbhan from the house and thereafter they assaulted him brutatly with the means of lathi, rod, fist and leg, as a resuft of which he sustained grievous injuries on various parts of his body. For the said act of the accused persons, the pet'rtioner made a complaint before the concerned Police authorities, but the Poltee authorities have not taken any action. Thus, the Poltee Officere are nct taking any interest in the matter and not proceecBng wth the reports of the petitioner. 2) In this regard, law is very ctear. If the Pdroe St^ion is not recording the infbrmation as referred in sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.P.C."), complaint can be made to the Superintendent of Police of the District concemed. Even if the Superintendent of Police fails to take any -v- action, the complainant can take recourse to provision of Section 190 read with Section 200 ofthe Cr.P.C. 3) The Hon'bte Supreme Court in the matter of Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of india and rthers1 held that "if any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the {X)lice offictate in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section Z)0 of the Code are to be adopted and observed." 4) In the matter of Sakiri Vasu vs. Stafe of U.P. and (^thers^, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "11 ....we woutd like to state that if a person has a grievance that the pottee station is not registering his FIR under Sectton 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C., by an applicatton in writing. Even if that does not yietel any satisfactory result in the sense that etther the FIR is still not registered, or thateven after registering tt no proper investigation is heM, it is open to the aggrieved pereon to file an applteation under SecUon 156 (3) Cr.P.C., before the leamed Magistrate concemed. If such an application under Section 156 (3) is Rled before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved pereon, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ereure a proper investigation. 17. In our opinion Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to irwlude all such powers in a Magistrate which are nwessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfled that a proper investigation has not been ctone, or is not being done by the police. Sectkm 156 (3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will inctude all such incidental powers as are neces^ry Tor ensuring a proper investigation." 1(2007)6SCC171 2 (2008) 2 SCC 409 / Raju 5) ln the martter of Lalita Kumari Vs. (^wernment of Uttar Pradesh and others3, also the Hon'bte Supreme Court reiterates the aforesaid view. 6) Sufffcient safeguards are given in the Cr.P.C., therefore, if any, grievance exists the petitioner may approach flrstly, the Superintendent of Police of the District concerned and; thereafter, to the Court of Judicial Magistrate under the provisions of Section 190 read with Sections 200 to 203 and other provisions of the Cr.P.C, 7) In view of ttie above, without expressing any opinion on the merits ofthe case, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge (2008) 7 SCC 164