^ COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNSL KUiVIAR SINHA, J. Appellant (Petitioner) Wrlt Apoea! No.301 of 2009 Praveen Kumar Katela, aged about 37 years, S/o Shri BL Kateta R/o Cjvi! Lines, Katela Bhawan, Raipur Distt Raipur (CG) Respondents VERSUS 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home Govt. of Chhattisgarh, SecretarEat, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2 Director General of Poiice, Chhattisgarh, Police Head Quarters, Raipur (C.G). 3 Supdt. of Police, Raipur (C.G). 4 Station House !n-charge, Poiice Statjon,Civlj Lines, Raipur (C.G.). 5 Smt. Kamla Devi Jain, Aged about 58 years, W/o Shri Parasmal Jatn, R/o Shankar Nagar, Near Water Tank, Ralpur (C.G.). 6 Smt. Mamta Devi Bhansall, Aged about 38 years, W/o Shri Mukesh Bhansali, R/o BaEjnath para Ward, Raipur (C.G.). 7 Smt. Neeta Bhansali, Aged about 43 years, W/o Shri Rajkumar Bhansall, R/o Baijnathpara Ward, Raipur (C.G) ofWrit AppeaE under Sectlon 2 (1) ofthe Hiah Court of Chhattlsgarh (Appeal to Divislon Beiich) Act, 2006 Present: ShrE V.G. Tamaskar, counse! for the appeliant. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondents No.1 to 4. ^ JUDGBVIENT (8th January, 2010) The foliowlng judgment of the Court was passed by Rsjeev Gupta, CJ. Shri V.G. Tamaskar, learned counsei for the appellant is heard on admission. 2) Appeilant -Praveen Kumar Kateia has filed thiswrit appeai against the impugned order dated 24.08.2009, passed in W.P.(Cr.).No.4586/2009. 3) Appellant - Praveen Kumar Kateia filed the writ petltion for the following reiiefs: "I. That, the Hon'bie Court be pleased to call for entlre record of enquiry conducted by Respondent No.4 as per report submitted by him to respondent No.3, vide letter No/PS/CL/ Complaint/25/2009 Offlce of Station House In-charge, Civii Lines Raipur Dated 25.06.2009 Annexure P 6 and peruse the same. !i That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to dlrect the Respondents 1 to 4 to register F.i.R. against Respondents 5 to 7 as per written compiaint dated 14.03.2009 Annexure P 2 made by petitioner/ compiainant, by issuing appropriate w/rit or direction. II! That the Hon'ble may if feit necessary mouEd the relief and hand over the investigation to an expert agency or may direct the investigation to be conducted under direct supervision of Respondent No.2. IV That the Hon'bie court may issue any other writ or writs order or orders direction or dsrections deemed fit En the interest ofjustice." w --i INNNN^ 4) The appellant/ petltloner, thus, in substance was seeking a direction to respondents No.1 to 4 to register First information Report on his written compiaint against respondents No.5 to 7 for the aileged commission of offences punishabEe under Sections 420,467 and 471 ofthe Indian Penal Code. 5) Learned Single Judge following the dlcta of the Apex Court in the cases of Aleque Padamsee and others VS Union of India and others reported in (2007) 6 SCC 171 and Sakiri Vasu Vs of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 has declined to interfere in the matter and dismlssed the writ petition with iiberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy avallable to him under the iaw. 6) !n view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Aleque Padamsee and others VS Union of Indla and others reported in (2007) 6 SCC 171 and Sakiri Vasu Vs of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409, the petitioner, if is aggrieved of the act of the investigating agency in not registering Flrst information Report on his compiaint, then, the remedy available to the petitioner Is of filing a criminal complaint before the competent Court. 7) We, therefore, do not find any scope for interference in thls intra Court appeai. 8) The writ appeal, therefore, is iiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. -—> subbu Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge