IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA'lTlSGARH : BILASPUR Petitioner Writ_Petition_ ,_812_of_2QQ4 Officer Inchai^e (Co-Operative luspector), Lolanaaya Seliakari Grih Niraian. Saastha Maiyadit, Registi-ation No. 95/82-83, Rohiaipuran, Raipur (C.G) Versus Kespondents 1, 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. State of Chhattisgarh, Thi'ough Secretaiy, Departineiit of HoBie(PoHce), Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Supermtendent of PoHce, Raipur(C.G.) Station House OfHcer, PoUce Station, Azad Chowk, Kaipur (C.G) Shri S. D, Upasan.e, Ex-President, Lokinanya Sahakad Gnh. Nuiaan Saasfha Mai^^adit, R/o, Tikirapara, Near Petrol Punip, Raipur (C.G.) Shri AnU Tope, Ex-Vice President, Lokmanya Sahakad Girh Nirmaa Saasfha Maiyadit, R/o Haaumaa Mandir GaM, Talyapara, Raipur (C.G.) Shri Kanilakar Kusre, Ex-Director, Lokinanya Sahakari Grih Ninnaa Saastha Maryadit, R/o. Venkatesh Niwas, Tatyapara, Raipur (C.G.) Shii Tikani Chand Preefcwadi, Contractor, R/o. Samta Colony, Raipur (C.G.) ^ppFp^p^p^^^^^y CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon?ble SIui Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shn Rajendra Aganval, Paael Lawyer tihie respondents No. 1 to 3/State. ORDER (Passed on this 8th Day ofSeptember, 2008) 1. WiUi fhe consent of leamed counsel appearing for fhe parties, the niatter is heard fiaally. 2. Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner subuiits thiat fhe petitioner, bemg Co-operative Inspector, was appomted as Officer Incharge of Lokmaaya Sahakan Grih Nirman Saasfha Maryadit, Kohnipuraai, Raipur after supersession of the Board of Directors of fhe Samiti. During his tenure as Officer :a]TfB(Bifiin Jys^"\ £2-,,.,. "^ '^8^' %im^;^' •^ —^— \^- 3. 6. Incharge of the Sainitl, ia regard to vadous aUeged irreguladties, fhe petitioner wrote a letter to the Senior Supermtendent of PoMce, Raipur dated 26.6.2003 (Annexure P/2). Although, sonie iavestigation was uudergoiiig by fhe poUce authonties, but no action has been taken agaiast fhe persons, responsible for conunitting ftie alleged irreguladties. I have heai'd learaed coiinsel appearing for the petitioner aad perused fhe pleadiags aad dociinients appended thereto. II tlie petitioner is not satisfied with fhe iavestigation aad fhe action takeu by the PoMce, he can avail the reniedy of filing a criminal coniplauit ia fhe Court of Judicial Magistrate. Learaed counsel appearfag for the peutioner tairly adinits that fhe petitioner has not availed ftie remedy available under the provisions of Sections 190 and 200 of fhe Cr,P.C, Siace fhe petitioner has not availed fhe statutory remedy available iinder fhe provisions ofSections 190 and 200 offhe Cr.P.C., it is not expedient to entertam. this petition at this stage. The Suprenie Court in the matter of Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others < (2007) 6 SCC 171} held ftiat 'If aay person is aggrieved by fhe iaaction of fhe police officials ia registenng the PIR, fhe niodalities contaiaed ia Section 190 read witihi Section 200 of fhe Code are to be adopted and observed/ The petition is accordmgly dismissed, as not mauitamable. However, it would be open to the petitioner to take recourse to any ofher reniedy avaitable under fhe provisions oflaw, Thalmr Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge