IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I'I‘ISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Peu'tion (CL) No. 2957 of2008 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTETUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihoui J.) Shxi Samecr Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shii Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. ORDER (Passed on this 6th Day of December, 2008) Learned counsel appealing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted various written reports to the Station House O$oer, Police Station Kumhari, District Durg agm‘nst the accused persons/culprits, who with common intention caused damage to the personal property of the petitioner and also assaulted (committed mar—peet) the petitioner and his servants and threatened for dire consequences but the police has not taken any action against those persons. Learned counsel vehemently argued that the petitioner has no other alternative remedy except to approach this Court under Ar1icle 226 ofthe Constitution of India. Petitioner Gnlab Singh Solanh. S/o Shn" *I‘cj Singh Solanki, aged about 50 ycars, by caste Rajput, msident of 869 Sunder Nagar Colony, Raipur, Tahsil and Disirict Raipur (CG) Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhatlisgarh, through the Secmtary, Deparmlent of Home, Mant‘alaya, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Dimctor General of Police, Chhattisgarh, P.H.Q. Raipur, Tahsil and Dis'txict Raipur (CG) 3. The Inspector Geneml of Police, Raipur Circle, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG) 4. The Collector, Durg, District Durg (CG) 5. The Superintendent of Police, Durg, District Durg(CG) 6. Station House OfEcer, Police Station Kumhari, District Durg (CG) 3. I have heaxd leaxncd counsel appcaring for the petitioner and perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Police or he is not satisfied with the achon taken by the Police, he can avail the mmedy of hlmg a c1imjnal complaint in the Court of Judicial Mag'strate. Learned counsel appealing for the petitioner fairly admits that the petitioner has not availed the remedy available under the pmvisions 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. 5. The Supreme Court in the matter of Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and othersl held that ‘lf 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 axe to ;be adopted and observed.’ ( Also see Sakiri Vasu Vs. state of ILP. & othersz and Lolita Kumui Vs. Govt. of Utter Pradesh & othersa) 6. The petition is accordingly dismissed, as not maintainable. However, it would be open to the petitioner to take recourse t any other mmedy available under the provisions of law. /r Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri‘ Judge 1 2 {(2007) 6 scc 171} (2008) 2 sec 409 3 (2008) 7 SCC 164 ' o