PETITIONF‘R EGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPLLE WRIT PETITION No. 1859 of 2003 IShanker Prasad Sharma S/o Shri K.L.Sharma, aged bout 39 yéars, Practising Advocate in District Court Korba, Resident of Gayatri Mandir Road, Bhadrapara, Post Offico Balco Nagar, Tehsil and District Korba (CG) V VERSUS I The State of Chhattisgarh Through the Principle Secretary, Chhattisgarh Government, D.K.S. Building, Raipur, Tehsil and District RaipurdCG) RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Medical, Health and Family Welfare, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Building, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (CG) The Director, Indian System of Medicine 85 Homeopathy, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (CG) The Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh Police, PHQ Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (CG) The Collector, Korba, Tehsil and District Korba (CG) The Superintendent of Police, Korba, Tehsil and District Korba (CG) ‘ The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Korba, Tehsil and District Korba (CG) ‘ The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Korba, Tehsil and District Korba (CG) The Station House Officer, Police Station Balco Nagar, District Korba (CG) Dr. Narendra Kumar Jain s/o Late Shri JiDiJain, Clinic behind Balco Nagar Karm Talkies, Balco Nagar, District Korba (CG) Sandhya Pathology, through its Proprietor, Hem Kumar Rathore, C/o Dr. Narendra Kumar Jain Clinic, Behind Balco Nagar, Karrn Talkies, Balco Nagar, District Korba (CG) Akhil Bhartiya Aayurved Vidhyapeet, Vikramsheela, Ishapur, Bhagalpur (Bihar) i 10. ll, l2. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Smt. Renu Kochar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the State. Shri Varun Sharma, Advocate fof the respondent No. 10 8a 11. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 02nd day of September, 2009) Heard learned counsel for the parties. \1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after registering a case under provisions of section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent No. 10, the police is not proceeding with the investigation and has further not done anything in the matter. Thus, the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the police officers and as such, this Court may direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to enquire into the allegations of criminal offences committed by the respondent No. lO and take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 2. Law in this respect has been made clear that if the petitioner is aggrieved by inaction, may be by not registering the First Information Report or thereafter, no action is being taken after registering the FIR, the aggrieved person may make a complaint to the Superintendent of Police under the provisionsof section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and thereafter, or may approach the Judicial Magistrate under the provisions of section 190 and section 200 of the Cr.P.C‘ (t 3. This Court in Mohd. Amish Memon Vs. State of CG. & othersl observed that “If the Police Station is not recording the information as referred in 12909 (1) c.G.L.J. 315 A sub—section (1) of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”), complaint can be made to the Superintendent of Police of the District concerned. Even if the Superintendent of Police fails to take any action, the complainant can take recourse to provision of Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. Further, this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 910/2009 (Saiyad Sabbir Ali v. Regional Transport Authority 85 others), decided on 12.2.2009, observed as under : “4. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Police or he is not satisfied with the action taken by the Police, he can avail the remedy of filing a criminal complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly admits that the petitioner has not availed the remedy available under the provisions of Sections 190 and 200 of the Cr.P.C. Since the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy available under the provisions of Sections 190 and 200 of the Cr.P.C., it is not expedient to entertain this petition at this stage. " In All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees’ Union (Regal) Through its President v. Union of India & Others2, the Supreme Court observed as under: “4. When the information is laid with the police but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant is given power under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the'Code to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and theMagistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate after recording evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process t0 the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate into the offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloseslan offence, he is 6) ll SCC 582. Amil empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would issue process to the accused. ” The above observation in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees’ Union (supra) was referred with approval in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre vi State of Maharashtra and others3 and Mina Kumari & another v. State ofBihar & Others4. Further, the Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union oflndia and others5, held that ‘lf any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed.’ (Also see Sakin’ Vasu Vsi State of U.P. 8a others5]. The petition is accordingly dismissed, as not maintainablet However, it would be open to the petitioner to take recourse to any other remedy available under the provisions of the Cr.P.C., if so advised. Sd/- ‘ sau'sh K. Agnihotri Judge y c 3 (2004) 7 scc 768 4 2006) 4 scc 359 5 (.2007) 6 scc 171 6 (2008) 2 scc 409 ,