@. ^ /' )' I?N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURfCHHATTISGARH) L-rf.^' fyi. ^>y/ WRTT PETmON N0^5$ 75/2002 PETmONER Smt. Sunita Gupta aged 41 Yrs. W/o. Shri Deepaka Gupta, R/o. House No. 44, Near Carrico garage, Amanaka, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) ^ RESPONDENTS r^^^- VERSUS 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary to the dept. of home Affairs, D.K.S. Bhawan Secretariat, Raipur (C.G.) 2) Superintendent of police, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3) Station House office, P.S. City Kotwali, Raipur (C.G.) 4) Inspector General of Police, Raipu?, C.G. 5) Jagdish Prasad Gupta S/o. Babulal Gupta, aged 67 years. 6) Pradeep Kumar Gupta S/o. Jagdish Prasad Gupta, aged 45 Years. 7) Sanjay Kumar Gupta S/o. Jagdish Prasad Gupta, aged 42 Years, respondent no. 5 to 7 are R/o. House No. 11/566, Sadar Bazar, Raipur, P.S. City Kotwali, Raipur WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22J & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR GRANT OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR CERCIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRITS OR DIRECTIONS OR ANY OTHER REMADY OF THE LIKE NATAURE ^-^" ^T^^' ^•' )• 10 XI-HC-22 ^n^r^ Rvti4i 5?n^$T $^(=b <y^a .- J T- s$' •g^ ^.INI^, ^^i^^, 'N^ff^C ^...^::5£A:^ Nl^^tl ^^icb 280 ^^ ^ssm^^^^ ^*ifci<ili 4ti^<3?il'^ fe'&l ^fa^K '^'^w^l^ 11.2.2004 Petitioner by Shri S. C. Vern^a^ Advocate. Respondents No. 1 to 4 ^yy Miss Sharmila Smghai, Deputy Gov-t. Advocate. The petitioner has pfeferrec this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India bemg a^f^ved by the maction on the part of the respondents No. 1 to 4 with the av| of Respondent No.5 and sister-m| |fments that the petitioner is daughter m law law of Respondents No. 6 and -7. She was carrying on the busmess of jewell^ry in her husband^s shop smce last 7 years which is situated m the house No.|ll/566^ Sadar Bazar^ Raipur. On 14.4.2003 she was illegally dispossessed wh|n her shop was closed for Navratri Parva from 10.4.2003 to 13.4.2003, as the;|respondent No. 5 to 7 broke open the shop and took away whole jewellery v^\ie of which was about 3 Lacs. When on 14.4.2003 on opening the shop sh| mshed to the police but they had r| No. 1 IQ 4 may be difected to ini| and they be directed to restore th^ knew about the mcident^ she immediately ot taken any action. Thefefore, respondents late action against Respondents No. 5 to 7 shop of the petitioner and suitable writ of niandamus or any other "writ in fg^our of the petitioner be issued to do the justice. I have heard learned co^nsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4. This petition relates to crimi^ial activities committed by respondents 5 to 7 on 14-4-2003 and for this pur^ose when the petitioner?s report was not T XI-HC-22 a^j^'^r 1^FF3^r ^*si^ ^^ 'Thalsur ^D '5^';=EiFR?R, ^^lw , fa<rtl^^< 31il^T ^3[3S 44Wd< ^^""^"^^•^^ ^^sy' 200 Fil^f ^'i^r^^w^^ -^- accepted by respondents 2 to 4 s Court and filed a complamt under Magistrate to send the complaint to 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for mvestigati" directly approached this Court. «^l^fa<8i^*^S^ fe^3 <ft«i^< ^3^P?3^^ ^e could have approached the concerned Bection 200 of the Cr.P.C. and could have requested for enquiry by the learn^d Magistrate or could have requested the the concerned police station under Section :»n. Instead of doing so, the petitioner has Therefore^ the petitioner has equally efficacious alternative remedy avail^ble under the criminal law to approach the criniinal Court for redressal ofher ^rievance. However^ she is allowed 10 days^ tiine from today to make a repres^ntation to respondent No.2 raising all her grievances and on receipt of suchl necessary action m accordance withl With the above observation^ | Certified copy as per Rules. representation respondent No.2 will take lla-w. his petition 1s disposed of finally. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge