HIGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR WRET PETITION (Ct) No. 6827 of 2008 PETITXONER : Smt. Pumima Swamkar, Wd/o Late Harendra Kumar Swamkar, aged about 27 years, R/o Gupta Muhalla, RS. Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RES?ONDENTS : 1. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through: Sem‘etary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawgn, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Superintendent of Police Janjgir Champa, Dim. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 3. Station House Officer, Shivrinarayan, Disit Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 4. Surendra Kumar Swarnkar S/o Yogeshwar Swamakar, aged about 45 years, Rfo Viliage Pakaria (Rahod) Distt. Janj gir Champa (C.G.) U1 . Purendra Kumar Swamkar S/o Yogeshwar Swamkar, aged about 4O years, R/o Village Pakaria (Rahod) Distt. Janj gir Champa (C.G.) WRH‘ PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotril J. Present: Shri N.K.Chatte1jee, Advocate for the petitiooer. Shri Bhaskar Payasi, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondentg 1 to 3 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 06m day of December, 2008) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Submits that inspite of making complaints made by the petitioner before the police for proper investigation of the death of her husband, the police authorities have not taken proper action on the complaint made by the petitioner. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. h) If the petitioner is not satisfied with the investigation and the action taken by the Police, she can avail the remedy offiling a criminal complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly admits that the petitioner has not availed the remedy available under b) i£nhisions of Sections 190 and 200 of the Cr.P.C. Since the petitioner / ‘ has not avaiied the statutory iemedv avzulabk under the prowswns of l Sec‘uon 190 and 200 of the CrP C 1t 1s not expedwnt to eritenain this petition at this stage. 4. The Supreme Couli, £11 the mat€er ofAEeque Padamsee and others v. Union lofi’;1dz'a and othersl held that ‘ifany persen is aggrieved by the inaction of the p01ice oEeials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Secu'on 19G read with sectim 200 of the Code are to be adopted and ohsewed.’ {A139 see Sakiri Vase: v. Sfaie of U}? & Otkersz and Laiita Kumari v. Govt. ofUn‘arPradesk and others3.) The petition is accordingly dismissed. as not maintainable However it wod be open to the peoner to take iecourse to any other remedy availe under the prowstons of law y sdl— ‘ Saush K Agmhw‘ Judge ' I "007) 6 scc 171 2 (7008) 2 scc 409 3. (zoos) 7 scc 164 \3 ul tm iao