HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BIQSPUR WRIT PETITION (Ch) NO. 06 OF 2007 Ram Ratan Sahu, S/o Shri Sada Ram, aged about 49 years, Occupation Private Service, Resident of viliage Vinayakpur, P.S. Anda,” Tehsil and Dist. Durg (CG). PETITIONER Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Senior Superintendent of Police, Durg, District Durg (CG). 2. Ofrtcer In-charge, Police StationAnda, Distt. Durg. 3. Khuman SinghDitliwar, aged about 52 years, S/o Shri Shyam Lal Diiliwar, R/o Village Vinayakpur, P.’S. Anda, Distt. Durg(CG). (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia) single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Uttam Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate General for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 6“; day of January, 2009) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made a complaint against the respondent No.3 before the Police stating that the respondent No.3 by preparing fake bills withdrew an amount of Rs.2,000l- from the panchyat fund by. putting the forged signatures of the petitioner, but till date the police have not taken any action against the respondent No.3. Thus, the Police authorities are not taking any interest in the matter and not proceeding with the complaint of the petitioner. 3) i have heard learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. ’ 4) If the petitioner is not satisfied with the investigation and the action taken by the Police authoritiesyhevcan avaii the remedy of tiling a criminai complaint in the Coun of Judicial Magistrate. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly admits that the, petitioner has not availed the remedytavailable under thetprovisions of Sections 190 and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C."), it is not expedient to entertain this petition at this stage. 5) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others‘ held that “if 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 Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and othersz and Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others3). 6) The petition is accordingly dismissed, as not maintainable. However, it would be open to the petitioner to take, recourse to any other remedy available under the provisions of law. ///./ "’ sd/- , ‘ Satish K. Agnihotrii ‘ Judge Gowri 1 (2007) 6 scc 171 2 (2003) 2 scc 409 3 (2003) 7 soc 164