^fc y moH COUR^OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETmONCCy No.87of2008 PETITIONER PLAINTIFF RESPONDENTS DEFENDANT JayaHtilal Tank Aged atoout 52 years, S/o Late Shri Teja Bhai Taidt, R/o Baigapara, Etarg, Tah. & Distt. Durg (C.G.) Through Power of Attomey Atmaram Tank S/o Tejabhai Tank, R/o Baigq)ara, Durg. VERSUS 1. State ofChhattisgarh Throug}i Town Inspector, Kotwali Police Station Durg (C.G.) 2. Devideen Umre Aged about 54 years, S/o Shri Tumaa Lal Untfe, residence In front of Prabhat TaBdes (Proprietor - Angel EhycleMiers) StationRoad, Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETTHON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTETUTION OF INDIA SBsHon'bIeShriSatishK.Afflrihotri.J. Present: ShriV.G.TaniaskaT,Advocatefor1faepetirioner. Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate Oeneral for the State. ORALORDBR (Passed oa I6tIldayofJanuary, 2009) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioaer submte fhat Ihe respondent No. 2 has broken ttie lock ofshop in question aad taken its possession illegally, for which the petitioner has filed a police complaiat on 19.7.2007, but the police authorities are not talcing any action against fhe alleged ofiFenders. 2. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for 1fae petitioner aad perosed Ihe pleadings and documents appended thereto. 3. Ifthe petitioner is not satisfied wife the investigation and the action taken by the Police, he can avail Ifae remedy of filmg a CTuminal complaint in Ifae Court of Judicial Magistrate. Leamed counsel appeariag for fhe petitkmer fairly admits that the petitioner has not \, [ availed fhe remedv avallable undar the provisions of Sections 190 and 200 ofthe Cr.P.C. Since •fce petitionerhas not availed Ihe statutory remedy available under the provisions of Section 190 and 200 of the Cr.P.C, itis not expedientto entertainthispetition attfusstage. 4. The Supreme Court, in fhe matter ofAleque Padamsee cmd others v. Unton oflndia and others^ held that 'if any persoa is aggrieved by the maction of the police ofScials in registering tfae FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with section 200 offhe Coiie are to be . adopted andobserved.' (Alsosee Sakiri Vasu v.StateofUJP. &0thers^ andLalftaKumari v. Govt. ofUttar Pradesh and others .) 5. The petition is aecordingly dismissed, as not mamtainable. However, it would be open to the petitioner to take recourse to aay otfaer ranedy available underthe provisibns oflaw. 6. Consequently.LA.No. l,forad-mterimwrit,alsostandsdismissed. Sd/- /SatishK.Agnibotn Judge i. (2007) eacc 171 2. (2008) 2 SCC 409 3. (2008) 7 SCC 164 Amtt ^»..