JUDGMENT 1. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor, this matter was finally heard. 2. The present misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for non-registration of case on the petitioner's report dated 1.10.2001. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a written report was given to the Director General of Police by petitioner which is also reproduced in the petition and the same was forwarded to Superintendent of Police and SHO, Narmada by the Director General of Police, but SHO, Harmada has not registered the FIR. Aggrieving with the inaction of the police, the petitioner preferred this misc. petition before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment reported in AIR SC Weekly 2000 in case of Mohindro v. State of Punjab and others wherein Lordship of Supreme Court has held that the petitioner approached the authority for registering a case against the alleged authority for registering a case against i the alleged accused persons but the police never registered a case and never put the law in motion, and therefore, having failed in an attempt to the High Court to get a case registered, she has approached this Court. Pursuant to the notice issued the respondents have entered appearance and further direct that a case be registered on the basis of the report to be i lodged by the appellant at the Police Station within a week from today and thereafter the matter will be duly investigated into and appropriate action be taken accordingly. 3. I have carefully gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and contents of the petition as well as written report which is reproduced in the petition. The misc. petition is allowed and SHO, Narmada is directed to lodge the written report of the petitioner immediately after production of such written report by the petitioner and registered a case within a week on the basis of written report submitted by the petitioner.Petition allowed. *******