HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGA8HAT BILASPUR Writ PetitionNo. 242 of2004 ^~:< /ff >'••..- i ;:..•*•" PETITIONER : Vinod Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shri Birbal Prasad Agrawal, aged about 39 years, wcupation businessman cum agricuhurist, resident of village Pipariya, Tehsil Kawardha, Disfrict Kawardha VER8U8 RESPONDENTS ;f -1. The State of Chhattisgarh througb the Secretary Department of Home AEEairs, Mantralaya, DKS BuildinfcRaipur(CG). 2. The Director General ofPolice, Chhrtti%arh, PHQ, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (CG). 3. The Superintendent of Police, Kawardha, District Kawardha(CG). 4. The Station House Officer, Pplice Station, Pipariya, Tehsit andDistrict Kawanlhai(CG). (WRrrpETrnoN UNDBR ARTICLE 226/227 QF THE coNSTnzmoNOF INDM) fSB: Htm'ble Mr. Satish K. Aenih®tri.JA Preseht : Smt. Renu Kochar,Advocateforthepetitiorief. Shri Shashaak Thakur, Pand Lawyer for the Stete. ORALORDER (Passed on2)al dayafOctobe^ 2008) 1. The petitioner, bythis petition, seefcsa du'ectiohagainstthestate autiiorities to initiate criminal proceedings against oae Arun Kumar Soni and Sushil Kumar Namdeo, without impleading thainas party respondente. 2. This Court cannot decide as to whefher the facts alleged bythepetitianer are correct or not. Eyen ofherwise, tiie petitioner js seeldng relief against two private persons, wfao have not been impleaded as party respondents. In that view ofthe matter, the petitioa is feivoloHs and deseryes to be dBimissed, However, jf fhe petitioner has any grievance, he may fadke recourSe to statutory altemative forom available to him under the provisions ofthe Code ofCriminalProcedure, 1973 (forshort'CrPC). 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed wilfa the above stated liberty. No order as to costs. —— f-, Sd/- ^ - Satish K. Agnihotti ; ; Judge \