•;-?^^ ^ HIOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (Q No. 3672 of 2007 Petitiouer Kanti Bai, widow of Late Shn Jagroop, by caste Rafhore, a%,ed. about 44 years, resident of ViUage SuKli, Police Statton Lormi, District BUaspur (C.6.) Versus Respondents 1, 2. 3, 4. State of Chhatfegarh, ttuough the Secretaiy, Departiuent of Home Affairs, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raipur (C.G.) The Superintetident of P&Uce, Bilaspur, Distnct - Bilaspur (C.G.) • The Station House OjGGcer, FtoUce Station Lorml, District Bilaspur(C.G.) Ravi Kttmar Rathore, son of Latelrain Rathore, aged about 30 yeara, residcnt of VUlage Seniariya, Police Station Lonni, District Bilaspur (C.G.) wRrr pETmoN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTrrUTION OF INDIA (SB: HonTale Shri Satish K. Aguihotri J.) Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M. P. S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondeats No. 1 to 3, Shri B. D. Guru, Advocate for the respondcht No.4. O R D B R (orall (Passed on this 8A day ofJuly, 2009) Heard. 1. Leamed counsel appearmg for fhe petitloxier subinits that the husband of tbe petittoiier was inurdered by soiae peisoa on 16.2.2007. The F.I.R. was lodged ia the police station Lormi on 17.2.2007 by Shiawan Singh Rajput. During fhe course of iuvest^ation, fhe petitiouer gave her statement to fhe poUce that the respondent No.4 is prfmc suspect ofthe iniuder ofhcr husbaud. When fhe concemed poUce of&cers refused to take aay action agaiust fhe respoiident No.4 then the petitioner made a coinplaiat to the Supcnateitdeat ofPoUce, BUaspur on 13.3.2007 as weU as to fhe other authorities (Annexure P/ 1). 2. I have heard leamed counsel appcariDg for the petitionjer aud perused the pleadiags aad docuineuts appended theieto. ^^"^ 1 n^<fi?/S • {^ £.7 -2-. 6. This Court in Mohd. Anish Memon V». State of C.G. & others1 observed fhat "Iffhe PoUce Station is not recording the iafonnation as referred in sub-section (I) ofScction 154 ofthe Code of Crimmfll Procediire, 1973 (for sbort "fbe Cr.P.C."), complaint caa be inade to the Supermtendent of Pblice of the District concemed. Even iffhe Supermtendent ofPolfce fails to take any action, fhe complainant can take recourse to provision of Section 190 read with Scction 200 of the Cr.P.C. Further, this Coiut in Writ Petition (C) No. 910/2009 (Saiyad Sabbir Ali Vs. Regioiial Transport Aufhority & others), dccided on 12.2.2009, observed as under : °4. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Poliae or he is nol satisfied ivifh fhe acKon tdken by the Polioe, he can avcdl the remedy offiling a criminal camplcdnt in the Cffurt ofJucKcsal Magisfrafe. Leamed counsel appeciring for the petitioner fairly admits thaf the petitioner hcs not availed the remedy available under the provisions of Sections 190 and 200 of the Cr.P.C. Since the pefitioner has not availed the stahttory remedy available under the provisions of Sections 190 and 200 of the Cr.P.C., it is not expectient to entertain this petition at this stage.' The Supreme Coiut in fhe inatter of AIeqne Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others2 held fhat 'If any person is aggrieved by the iiiaction of £he policc officials ru registeritig the FIR, the niodalities contaiued in Scctton 190 read wifh Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed.' (Also see Sakiri Vasu Vs. State ofU.P. & others3 ) The petition is accordingty disinissed, as not laamtauaable. However, it would be open to the petitioiier to take recourse to aay other reniedy available under the prowisions oflaw. •nulcur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ' 2009 (1) C.G.L.J, 315 2 {(2007) 6 SCC 171} 3 (2008) 2 SCC 409 ^ SE®^a^^;^~^t^'Rr~'"TTI-