38 HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH.BILASPUR (DIVISIONBENCHl CORAM: HON'BLESHRI JAGDISH BHALLA, ACTING C.J. & HON'BLESHRIDILIPRAOSAHEBDESHMUKH,J. c ApBellant Petitioner ResDondents WritADDeal No.12Eof2007 - Shalik Ram, S/o Shri Gaindu Ram Sahu, aged about 58 yeare, Oceupation-Private Serviee, Resident of Village Vinayakpyr, Pplice Station ANDA, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) -Versus- 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Senior Superintendent of Police, District Durg (C.G.) 2. Officer-in-charge, Police Station, ANDA, District Durg (C.G.) 3; Khuman Singh Dilliwar, S/o Shri Shyam Lal Dilliwar, aged about 52 years, Resident ofVillage Vinayakpur, Police Station ANDA, Tahsil and District Durg(C.G.) WritADDealUnderSection2(iyoftheC.G.HiahCourt(ADDealtoDivision Bench)Act,2006 Present: Shri Uttam Pandey, Counsel for the appellant/petitioner. Shn Vinay Harit, Dy. A.G. for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 27.06.2007) The following pral order of the Court was passed by Jagdish Bhalla, Acting C.J. This writ appeal arises of the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge wherein the writ petition of the appellaht was dismissed on theground ofalternatiyeremedy. M There is delay of 50 daysinthisappeal.,.l-lowever,weGalledupon theappellanttoaddressthisCourton merits af'thiscase. A^S 33 4 Learnedcounsel for theappellant had prayed before the leamed Single Judge for a direction in the natureof mandamus to the authorities to ensure thatthe first information is registered. In his support, learned counsel for theappellant submitted that the police officer hadno other alfernativeexceptfolodgethefirstinfbrmationreportby infbrmantand in support he relied upon judgments rendered in the case of Lallan Chaudharv & Ors.V. State of Bihar & Anr. 2006 AIR SCW 5172 and Prakash_Singh_Badaland another v. State of Puniab and othersV. State of Puniab andothers (2007)1 SCC 1. Interestingly, the learned counsel for the appellant informed that he had not cited the above judgments before leamed Single Judge under the impression that the learned Single Judge is aware of the same. The pronouncements of the Apex Court are binding upon the High Court and thesociety including members ofthe Bar. After hearing learned counsel fbr thepartjes, we find thatstatutory remedy available to the petitioner is under Seetion 156 bf the Cr.P.C. However, learned counselfortheappellaritwho had submitted thatsuch a remedy is not efficacious remedy, has failedto substantiate his argument. Further, learned counsel for the appellant could not point any reason or ground for our interference inthejudgmentandoFderpassed by learned Singte Judge. Now we come to the directioh given by the Hon'ble Single Judge in thejudgmentand order wherein we find that the Hon'ble Single Judge has granted liberty to the appellant to file a criminal Gomptaint before the competent court of law on the allegation which has been raised against respondent No.3. Therefore, Hon'ble Single Judge has dismissed the petition on the ground of altemative remedy, thereby it means that the Hon'ble Single Judge hasnot made anyscrutinyon the merits Qfthecase. •ll -1:'~ 1:""£ In theJightofabQve, we find no error committed bythe Hon'ble Sirigle Judge in passing the impygned order. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed. We furtherclarified thatStill it would be open for the appellant t6 approach the competent Court Oflawin accordance witlittiei'provision of CodeofCriminalProcedure,1973. , Sd/- Ag. ChiefJustice Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge r-=^- h s; &r