@ HIGH COURT OF CHHA'I‘TISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition {C} No. 1365 of 2009 Lalita Knmari Rammkc, aged about 20 years, Dlo Kantilal Ramteke, R/o Supela, Ghari Chowk, Durg. The State of Chhattisgarh, thmugh Secretaxy, Home Depanment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. Superintendent of Police, Durg 3. Kantilal Ramteke, aged about 51 years, Rio Sector No. 1, Sadak No.12, Qu. No. 11/8, Bhilai, Distt. Durg 4. Kavita Ramteke, W/o Kantilal Ramteke, aged about 45 years, R/o Sector No,1, Sadak No. 12, Qu.No. 11/8, Bhilai, Distt. Durg. Petitioner Versus Respondents 1. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDLA (SB: Hon’ble Shn'lSatish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Paxag Kotecha, Advocate-for the petitioner. Shri M. P. S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. 0 R D E R (Passed on this 22nd Day of April, 2009) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is 20 years old and as such, has attained the o majmity. The petitioner has decided to live separately on her own way. At the instance of the pamnts of the petitioner, the petitioner has been extended harassment by the police authorities. 2. If there is a hamssment to the petitioner by police or any other . person, the proper course would be to lodge complaint before the police authorities and if the complaint i.e. F.I.R. is not taken cognizance by the police station, the further complaint may be made to the Superintendent of Police and thereaher, to the judicial magistrate. 3. At this stage, on the basis that the police has recorded the statement, no case is made out. If the petitioner is aggriewd by the harassment caused by any person, including the parents, the petitioner should take proper course of action. \. \ \ 4. Learned counsel argued that thc petitioner has no other alternative remedy except to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking police protection. 5. I have healrl learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. This Court in Wn‘t Petition (C) No. 910/ 2009 (Saiyad Sabbir Ali Vs. Regional Transport Authority 85 othets), decided on 12.2.2009, observed as under z “4. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Police or he is rwt satisfied with the adian taken by the Police, he can avail the mmedy offiling a criminal complaint in the Court ofJttdicial Magistrate. Learned oounsel 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 avaitable under the provisions of Sections 190 and 200 of the Cr.P.C., it is mt ewedient to entertain this petition at this stage.’ 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Aleque Padamoee and others Vs. Union of India and othersl held that ‘lf any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police o$cials 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 ILP. & others“ and Lolita Kumarl Vs. Govt. of Utter Pradesh & others") 8. 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. Sdl— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur 2 {(2007) 6 SCC 1'71} (2008) 2 soc 409 3 (9008» 7 sch 164 “t