d) IN THE HIOH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH : B1LASPUR "w Writ Petition No. 5388 of 2007 Petitioner Gudhari. Vauhiiav, S/o Shri Purshottam. Vaishnav, a^sA about 47 years, R/o Vilk^e - Jhigatpi.ir, Police Station - Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Throi^h the Secretaiy, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantialaya, Raipur (C.G.) Station House Officer, PoUce Station Kota, District Blaspur (C.G.) Superintendent of PoUcc, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. 3, WRIT PETITION UNDER AKl'ICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrrUTION OF INDLA. (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satteh K. Agnihotri J.) Shri K. K. Sin®h,Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A. S. Kachwaha, Depuly Advocate Geaeral for thfi respondents. •».- ORDER (Passed on this 5*h Day ofDecember, 2008) Leamed counscl appearmg for the petitioner submlts that fhe dead body of the son of the petitioner was found in a pond on 9.3.2007. The poUce xegistered the niei^ after recewiug the iatuaation. During iavestigation the petitioiier categoricaUy stated names of two persons as prime suspect of fhe crimc. Afler iaterrogating thexu the poUce dtecharged those persons. Thereafter no cliallan was filed by ftie police in the Court. I have heard lcamed counsel appearing for the petitioner aand perused the pleadings and documents appeiuled thereto. If the petitioner is not satisfied with fhe invest^atlon aud the action taken by the PoUcc, be can avail the reinedy of fiting a crtminal coiuplaint iu the Court of Judicial Magtetrate. Leamed coiinsel appearu^; for the petitioDer fairiy admlte fhat tbe petitioiier has not availed the reinedy availabte under the provisions of Sections 190 and 200 of fhe Cr.P.C. Siace fhe petitioucr has not avaUcd the statutory retaedy avafflable lUKler fhe provisions of Sections 190 and 200 of the Cr.P.C., it is aot expedient to eatertam fhis petition at this stage. The Supreme Court ia fhe inatter of Aleque Padamsee and otheis Vs. Unloa of India and others1 held fhat 'if any person is aggrieved by fhe inaction of the poUce officials in regKtering thc FIR, thc inodaUtics contaiaed ia Section 190 read with Sectton 200 of fhe Codc are to be adopted and obsewed.' ( Also see 8ald»lVasn Vs. State of U.P. & othera? and Laltta Kumarl Vs. Qovt. of Uttar Pradedi te otliew3) The petition is acconlingly disuussed, as not laaintaiaable. However, it would be open to the petitioner to tate rccoursc to any oftier renaedy available imder the provisions oflaw. Tlialau Sd/- Satish K.Agnihom Judge '{(2007)68cc 171} 2 (2008) 2 SCC 409 3 (9.008) 7 SRH 1fi4