@‘oylw ’. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH z BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 910 of 2009 Petitioner V Respondents Saiyad Sabbir Ali, S/o Saiyad Ahmad Al, aged about 32 years, R/o C—i8, Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipult . (C.G.) ersus Regional Transport Authority, Bastar- Division, Jagdalpur, Distt.» Jagdalpur (C.G.) Superintendent of Police Jagdalpur, Distt. Jagdalpur (C . G.) Ganesh Gupta, Proprietorof Gupta Travels, Jagdalpur, Distt. Jagdalpur (C.G.) Station House Officer, Bodhghat Jagdalpur, Distt. Jagdalpur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB; Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Ajay Shrivastdva, Advocate for the petitioner. and 4. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel LaWyer for the respondents No. 1, 2 O R D E R (Passed on this 12th Day of February, 2009) ’Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having a valid permit dated ' 4.9.2008 to ply passenger bus from Raipur to Bailadila via Dhamtari, Kanker and ‘Jagdalpur. The proprietors of Gupta Travels and Bharat - Travels usually obstruct the plying of bus on the route. They abuse and threaten the employees of the bus of the petitioner. A report in t s regard i was lodged in the, police station Bodhghat Jagdalpur on 7.2.2009 but no action has been taken by the police. The petitioner has also brought the matter to thenotice of various higher. authorities. Learned counsel vehemently argued that the petitioner has no other alternative remedy except to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking police protection. i ' /' \(w I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 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. The Supreme Court in the matter of Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and othersl 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. 85 othersz and Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh 8L others3) 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. 1 Sd/— ” Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur l {(2007) 6 scc 171} Z (2008) 2 scc 409 3 (2008) 7 scc 164