r\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (Q No. 3877 of 2007 Petitioner Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. Ghaiishyam Shaha, S/o Keshav Chand Shaha, aged about 75 years, R/o willage Bada Navapara (Sarai) P.S.H, Sarai, District Raigarh (C.G.) State of Chliattisgarh, through Principal Secretaiy, Home Departinent, D.K.S. Bhavaa, Raipur (C.G.) Supermtendent of Police, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) PoUce Station Officer, P.S.H. Tamnar, District Raj^arh (C.G.) CoBector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.O.) WRFT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OPTHE CONSTrrUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. A^nihotri J.) Shri J. K. Shastri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M. P. S. Bhatia, Deputy Oovt. Advocate for the respondents. ORDERIotall (Passed on tlus 8fb day ofJtdy, 2009) Heard. Learaed counsel appearing for the petitioiier submits ftat fhc daughter of fhe petitioner was married to one Dr. Mitabhanu Gupta. The husband of the daughter of petitiouer was having Ulegal relation with some other womaa, therefore, fhe relations between husband and wife were not cordial. Qn 29.1.2007 daughter of the petitioner died in suspicious circumstaaces. The pedtioner lodged a complaint to fhe respondent No.2. The ofFence was registered at Crinie No. 13/2007 but the poKce have not properiy iuvestigated the niatter. Hence this petition. I have heard leamed counsel appeario^ for the petitiouer aad perused fhe pleadiags aad dociunents appen^d thereto. This Court in Mohd. Attish Memoa Vs. State of C.G. & others1 observed fhat "Iffhe PoUce Station is not recordu^ the mformation as referred ia sub-section (1) of Section 154 ofthe Code of Crunmal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.P.C.^, coniplaiut can be made to the SuperuiteDdent of PoUce of fhe ' 2009 (1) C.G.L.J. 315 ^fcstL ff' 'iB3*a?.; S ^ '^y^S^. i. 1 "-UKffg |i' .:v':: ''&••^••;-:;' .;; 2- District concemed. E^en ifthe Supcrintendent ofPolice fails to take any action, fhe complainaat caa take recourse to provision ofSection 190 read with SecUon 200 offhe Cr.P.C. Further, tfris Court iu Writ Ffctition (C) No. 910/2009 (Saiyad Sabbir Ali Vs. Regtonal Transport AufhDnty & others), decided on 12.2.2009, observed as under : *4. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the inacSon on the parl'of the Police or he is rwt satisfied with the acfton taken by the Police, he oan avml the remedy offiUng a crhrmud comptont in ihe Caurt ofJudiaal Magistrate. Leamed caunsef appearing for the petitioner fairty cubruts ihat the petitioner has not avaited fhe remedy availaUle under the prcwisions of Sections 190 and 200 of the Cr.P.C. Since the pe'tifioner has not availed the statutory remedy avcatdble under the provisi<ms ofSections 190 and 200 of the Cr.P.C., it is not expedient to entertain </us pefition at this stage. ' The Supreme Court in thc matter of Aleqne Padamsee and others Vs. Unlon of India and others2 held that 1f aay peraon is ^[grievcd by the inaction of the poUce ofBcials in registering fhe FIR, the niodalities contaiued in Section 190 read with Section 200 of fhe Code are to be adopted and observed.' (Also sce SaUrl Vasu Vs. State of U.P. te othera3 ) The petition is accordir^ly dismissed, as not maintamable. However, it would be opea to the pctitioner to take recourse to any other reniedy avaDable under the provisions oflaw. TbaSmz Sd/- SatishK. Judge "B'l I.A 2 {(2007) 6 SCC 171) 3 (2008) 2 SCC 409 1