\6 « IN THE HIGH COURT OF (,HHA’I'I‘IS ARI-I BEASPU i Wnt Petmon (Cr) No 4519lof 2008 Petiltgoner u> Sumsh Agxawal, s/e Lats Shri M R Ayawal Aged A out - 48 years R/o Qrt No 11 D sueei No 2 Sector-2 m1 Dlstt. Durg (C G) Versus Rcéondents State of Chhatiisgarly Through its _ VSecmtaxy, Depaxtment of, Home, D.K.S. Bhawan, Rmpur (C G) Duector General of Pohce Rmpur (QG) Supenntendent of Pohoe Dxstt Kahmiham ‘(C G) Invesugatzon 0&cer, Posted at Pohce Stamm Kawandha Dlstt Kabu‘dham (QG) Nltesh Amwal, Slo — Late Qhn Ramavmr Agrawal, Aged about 38 yeam Smt Mayadev1 lAgmwal, W/o - Nrtesh Agmwal, Aged about 35 years ;Smt Ramkah Dev1 Agrawal, Wd/o Late Shn ‘ Ramavtar Agmwal, Aged about 55 yeaxs ‘ I Respondents N :5 to 7 ale Rlo Rajmahai' : Colony, Kawar Dlstt Kahfniham (C G) p x ( » U #CDN 0 l ‘ I\ A WRIT PETITION UNDER ARI‘ICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihot’ri‘JJ Shxi Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the petitionen Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocam Generalfor‘me mspondenmk _ o. 1 to 4/State. O R D E R (Passed on this. 18“! Day ofAugust, 2008} . With the consent of leamedr counselappearing for. the. pa'Iies, § the matter is heani finally. Learhed counsel‘appearing for the petitioner submitsth-at the ‘ daughter of the petiu'oner namely A'lka alias Puma, was maxned to Nishant ahas Rinkll Agrawal on 4 12 200?. She j ‘ d1ed 1n susplcmus cu‘cumstances 1n her melaws house on § 10 7 2008 The pennoner lodged an F I R 1n the Poms Station v Kawanihn (Kabmiham) on 107 2008 {Annexure P/ l) agamst N1shant and the respondents No 5 6 and 7 Dunng the; mg vesnauon the pohce anested Ntshant (husband of the: LR , d N MW ’ ~L, deceased) but the Police has not taken any action against thc respondents No. No. 5, 6 and 7. As it was a dowry death, the :: Police authon‘ties should have iaken appropn‘ate action f against the co-accused persons i.e. :respondents No.5, 6 and 7 ’ also. € I have heard learned counsel ap aring or the parties and perused the pleadings and documen appended thereto. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the investigah‘on and the ' action taken by the Police, he can avail the remedy of hling a : criminal complaint in the Court of Judicial Mag’shate against ‘ the respondents No. 5,. 6 and 7. Learned counsel appearingfor ‘ the petitioner fairly admits that the‘ petiu’oner has not availed the remedy available under the provisions of Sections 190 and 200 ofthe Cr.P.C. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy available under the provisions of Sections I 190 and 200 of the Cr.P.C., it is not expedient to enteltainthis ’ petition at this stage. 6. The Supreme Court in thematter oftAleque‘, Padumseeand 3 other: Vs; Union. of‘lndla and other: {(2007) 6 SCC 17 I} held that ‘lf any peison is aggrieved by the inaction of the police'omcials in reg‘stering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code am to be adopted and observed.’ ' The petition. is accordingly dismissed, as not maintainable. However, it would be open to the pen‘tioner to take mcourse to any other remedy available under the provisions of law. f