HigH LUURI OF CHHATTESCARH AT BELASE’UR \‘llo? VJRTT FETETKGN N0. 2638 0i;2093 9 PETITEONER Smt, Kiran Agawa}, Wife of 8hri Murariiai Agrawal, Aduit, Resident ofJawahar Nagar, Raipur. R JS?ONDENT§ State of Cmlattisgarh t‘meugh the Secretary, Ministry of Home and Affairs, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). The Town Inspec‘mr, Fohce Station Moudhapara/Ganj, Raipur {CG). WET PE TITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/’2"‘7 OF HE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Eon’iale Shri Satish K. Agniéioti’i. §. Present: Shri Awadh Tripathi. Advocate for Ehe petitioner. Shri AS. Kachhwaha. Deputy Advocate General for the State. h) ORAL ORBER (Passed 911 5m day cf Decemeez, 2008) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearmg iinaiiy. g;“ . Learned counsei appearing for the petitiorier submitg that the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the police authorities for not investigating the comptaint ot‘the petitioner, yroperiy. The petitioner made an application on 20.092602 (Annexare PB) before the concerned Poiice Authorities by raising his ail“ 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. ii the Police Station is not recording the information as referrer} in sub-section (i) of Section i54 of the Code of Criminai Procedure. 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”), complaint can ‘oe made to the Superintendent of Poiice of the District concerned. Even if the Superintendent of Police faiis to take any action, the compiainant can take recourse to provision ofSeetion 19G read with Section 200 ot‘the CLEC. K: ’TWme Hon’bie Supreme (301 in the matier o .L‘eqai Padmnsee and otEiers m f xie Umkm of India agad ochers held that “if any persoa is gieved by the inaction ofthe pohce oicials in registering th FIR, 1116 modaiities contained ff e in Secon 199 mad with Section 200 of he Code are to be adopted and ti t obwed.” se In the tter of $airi Vasu vs. Se of U}. anti otiaersz, the Hon‘bie ma k tat Supi‘eme Court obsewed as under : “11....we wouid le to State that if a person has a grievance that the poiice station i3 not registering hi3 FIR under Section 4 r.P.C. then e can aproach the Seintendent of Police under Section 154 (3) CO, by an satisi‘zietory: anoiication resxiit in intiescnse nn Even that 1: either that does the F—iR not ielstiii yieié any not regietered, or that even after registering it no proper inwstigation is heidr it is open to the aggrieved person to iiie an appiication under $ection 156 (3) Cr.P.C._. before the ieamed Magistmte concerned. If sash an application under Section 156 (3) is friec‘i before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FER to he regietered and also can direct a prover investigation to be rnacie, in a case where, A: T 41 1 ascorurng to tne aggrieved person, no proger investigation was made The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a prooer investigation. 17. in our opinion Section 156 (3) CriRC. is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessarv for ensuring a Drover investigation. and it incindes the p wer to order registration of an FIR. and of ordering a proper investigation ifthe Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done; or is not heing done by the poiice, $ection 156(3) Cr.P.C., though brieiiy worded, 'n oar ooinion. is very wide and it wiii inciude aii such ineiriental powers as are necessary for e staring a proper investigation.” 3‘ In the matter of Latita Kmnari Vs. Government ofUttar ?radesh anii others. aiso the Hon’bie Supreme Court reiterates the aforesaid View. 6. Surticient safegmards are given in the Cr.P.C., therefore, if any, grievance exists the petitioner may approach‘iirstly, the Superintendent of Police ofthe r ’)- (2008) 2 soc 409 V/s i‘ ag ik 15 C_. h p ner LE waa ib UJ District concemed and; thereafter, to the Court of Judicial Magistrate under the previsions of Section 190 read with Sections 200 to 2&3 and other provisions ofthe CLEO 7. In View ofthe above, witiiout expressing any opinion on the merits ofthe case, the petition stamis disposed of.