./ ./' / c^ IH THE HXGH COBRT OF JUDICATHRE AT 8IIASPBK (GHHATTISSARI W.P.NO. '306-8 o? 2003 PETITIOSER Qanesh siH§hania«son o£ Nand Kisbar singhania, aged afaoafe 43 yeaxa , resAdeafe ®£ Neta4-i. Chowk, Janjgir Champa, Disteiet- JanjgJ.r-e&ampa,{C.G.) i^f-tl V E S.SV S BESPONDa'ITS ./• ..'•: ^^y .--••;!^<^'"* .^^'y' sl. The state ®£ Chhattisgarh,thc@agh SecBetaEy» Departmenfe of Heme and Affairs. D.K»s«Building,Manti>a].aya»Raipiai:, Distra.et Ra.i.par,(C.G.). .^«' y t^>" s 2«I Bistrlofe Magistrcrte ,Janjgi.e Champa, Blstr4.cfc^TanJgi.r-Champa«(C»®«; ) IK"'. ;3. sapeEJ.nteadent ef Pol.i.eet janjglr«Chanipa,District— iS'anjgAr-Champa, (C.8.} i4. station House OfficeB, police gtafeisn iJanjgi.B CiieCiga, DisfcEiet-Janjgir'iChasapa.Cc.G.) ^?,t ^^IT PETITION (iNBER ARTIGI^ 2$6/2$ OF THE /^-,/^\%: ^•i^\V^' f^ CX3KSTITO'riQN Og__INDXA. t- V t^' rflniir'ii iiiillii 11 nii IIIMII iir.riNiniinii i ili ii ' ii s'" ^ <°., •^-. 33-HC-22 's^'qraRra, ^-dly'is, iqcii-My Wqm SRlllch ...S<3.:I:>,^.0.6^/ ra; 200^. •sn^CT^ 1?:iW3:!RST arqwgfig an^T^iW'sfei cbl^I(Ttiti*1 'RTO^f ^ ^^ <pii+$f< q? sif'gii sn^i 35.11.2003 Shri Awadh Tripathi,counsel fo^ the petitioner^ 5hri Praveen Dos, Panel Lawyer for •the State/re^ondents. Heard bo-th the counsel. i B^this writ petition under Arti^k 226/227 of the ConstiTution of Cndia, -tfie main challenge of the pe^itioner is that on 10.09.2003 at ibout 10 p.m. some persons namely,j Sali, Nazir Khan, Bhairon Mishra, ?hibu Verma, <4shok RaThore, Ritesh fThawai, Jojo Rathore entered The louse of the petitioner and -tfiey we^e having La'this and knives jn their" lands and started abusing and asso^lting -the petitioner by fist an imgged -rtie petitioner on tiie road djnd said that why he had removed •j+ie Egg Cart and further started beajt-ing the petitioner. The petitioner ijipprodched the Police Station; JanJgir-Champa. The Police got the l^etitioner medically exnmined, but t|ie S-hation House Officer, Potice ^tation: Janjgir-Champa had not reg|stered the case. The petitioner tent a written compkiint to the Sup^rintendent of Police d Collector, ^anjgir-Champa. Even then the ^ase has not been registered. fherefore, The petitioner has not jteft with any otiier alternative ^fficacious remedy under the taw exj»pt to invoke -the jurisdiction of ^n\s Court. Therefore, the respondenfs be directed to register the case 4nd investigate into the mutter. [ XI-HC-22 [^'•?-. 7^1 •*tnm<{, 8Til<H'ie, facii-Hy ^iwirwirai 200j^ 1^^?' sn^r^ 1?;ri?T31I^I sf^WHftTi 'vk M"''-"' SOFHQ It is not true that equally effi ^vaitable to the petitioner. The tnove the concerned Judickil fcrovisions of •Hie Code of Criminal ^Aagistrote ond the Magistrote can hf the Cr.P.C. i.e. either he coui (iroceed with the complaint as per the| ()f The Cr.P.C. or -riie Magistrate con (3) of •the Cr.P.C. to •the eoncerned tmd investigate the matter. s availabte to the petitioner. In the circumstances, I do (letitioner. The petition is, therefoije (iccordingly, rejected. In view of this order, I.A.t ^icacious alternative remedy is not petiti^ner is very wel! within his right to Mcgj^trote, First Cbss, as per the P^ocedure. We may complain to the pr^ceed further as per the provisions hiinself examine the witnesses and I provisions of Sections 200 to 204 ^end a complaint under Section 156 ffolice Station to register the case i, efficacious alternativ( ;"emedy Therefdre chl^?<vl41l ^l^^t' ^ fs^ <Fal^l< ^7 aiPtiiT sn^i not find any substcnce in the B, tiable to be rejected cnd it is No.90p7/2003 stcmds disposed of. Sd/- L.C:BHADOO Judge