r" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Cr.l N0.7179 OF 2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 2. 3. Chetan Rajput.S/b Rewaohan^^ged about 48 years, R/o Chata'adharnagar, Kaserpara, Raigarh (CG). Versus The State of Chhattisgarh, throuQh the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(CG). The Inspector General of Police, State Economics Offence, Investigation Bureau, Raipur (CG). The Superintendent of Poljce. the State Economics Offence, Investigation Bureau, Raipur (CG). (Writ petition under Article 226 ofthe ConstituUon of India) Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri P.K. Tuteyan, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri M.K Bhaduri, counsej forthe petitioner. Shri Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate Generat forthe State. . ORDER (Passed on this 5"* day of January, 2009) With the consent of learned counset appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2) Learned counsel appearing ft>r the petitioner submtts that the petitioner. who is a joumalist has made a wmplaiRt against the Forest Ranger namely, A.K. Pandey before the Statt Economics OffenceWjng, InvestjgaUQn Bureau, Raipur.statlRgthatPandeyhas committed some financjal irregularities and also made ^me false and forged entries in the concerned cash books of the EQre^ Department. On the basis of the cQmplaint of the petitioner, the r^pondent authorities recorded the statement of the petttioner, but till date they have not taken any action against the Ranger namely, A.K. Pandey. Thus, the respondent authorities are not taking any interest in the matter and not proceeding wfth tbe complaintMthe petitioner. -2-- Raju 3) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petttioner, perused the pleadings and the documents appended ther^o. 4) If the petitloner js ncA.satisfied wtth the iRvesUgg|i^ and the action taken bythe respondent airthorities, hecanavailthe reroedy of filinga criminal complaint in the Court of Judicial MagNtrate, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fau'ly admit&that the petitjoner has not availed the remedyavailableundertheprovfetons of Sections 190 and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Ihe Cr.P.C."), it is not expedient to entertain this p^ioo at this stage. 5) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matto' of Ateque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others1 hetd that "if any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the poiice ofRciate in registering the FJR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observecl." (Afeo see Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others2 and LaUta Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others3). 6) The petition is accordingly dismiss^l, as notmaintainable. However, it would be open to thepetitionertQ take recourse to.any other remedy available under the pcovisions of tew. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 (2007) 6 SCC 171 2 (2008)28cc 409 3 (2008) 7 SCC 164