o ^oolf i' . ^ --'^^ ^^ ^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURfCHHATTISGARH) :/; .„_,_.....^^"7t^. WRFT PETmON NOr' /2002 ^ PETmONER / Bhupendra Kumar Jain, aged 54 Yrs. S/o. Shri Khajanchi Lal Jain, R/o. Near Socity Ara Mitlers, Badhai Para, Road, Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary to the dept. of home Affairs, D.K.S. Bhawan Secretariat, ^' ^ A'9>&^>** _ RaiPur (C-G-) *°^^'.S^'^?* 2) Superintendent of police, Raipur/ .^:"^'"....^ Chhattisgarh l^ v~k •N ^— • • • ..<^%^ T^:^'"?^' ^•' / WRIT PETITIQN JJNDER, Chhattisgarh 3) Station House ofHce, P.S. City Kotwali, Raipur (C.G.) 4) Inspector General of Police, Raipur, 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 ARTICLE 22€^ & 227 OF THE -.-.-„—L..._.. 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 p- XI-HC-22 SFII^T^T Ri^ 3n|?T ^t^-lw *1ft<1 'S'^^ro^pf, ^xtl^s^, fert^^ aiii^r i^i^ -Hl HX?11 %W^»^...W(p....^^..^.^..., 11.2.2004 Petitioner by Shri S. C. Vern^ Respondents No. 1 to 4 Advocate. Tlie petitioner has preferre^ Constitution of India bemg respondents No. 1 to 4 wlth the respondents 5 to 7. He was carryi| which is situated m the house Nd When the shop of the petitioner Holi Par^a^ respondents 5 to 7 l| stationary materials vah.ie ofwhich openmg the shop he knew about police but they had not taken anyj may be directed to imtmte action a directed to restore the shop oftheJ any orfier writ m favour ofthe I have heard learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4. This petition relates to crimii 7 on 21-3-2003 and for this purg accepted by respondents 2 to 4 he and filed a complamt under a^r|eved ^l^fc^^^N^lf^^^A^K ^ 3^P? 3RR^?T la, Advocate. by Mlss Sharmila Smghai, Deputy Govt. this. petition under Article 226/227 of the by the inaction on the part of the ayernients that the petitioner is tenant of \g on the busmess of stationary m the shop 11/566 and 11/567, Sadar Bazar, Raipur. |yas closed from 18-3-2003 to 21-3-2003 for ^oke open the shop and took away whole }was about Rs. 1 lac. When on 22-3-2003 on ^fhe incident, he immediately mshed to the action. Therefore, respondents No. 1 to 4 ^amst Respondents No. 5 to 7 and they be betitioner and smtable writ ofmandamus or issued to do the justice. for the petitioner as well as learned peti^loner be coltnsel ^ial activities committed by respondents 5 to |ose when the petitioner>s report was not |ould have approached the concerned Court Sedtion 200 of the Cr.P.C. and could have p- =F XI-HC-22 <3^? ^iNRR, ^^Tt^^l^, fadwy 3n^rv^^ TW<hi-w-3^^-Wt aa^ ^WWJ WW^h W^T^T ^(W ^^[^ ^i^n Thakur requested for enquiry by the learned 156(3) ofthe Cr.P.C. for investigatiof^ directly approached this Court. <3frl^?<r^<i ^^<af^^v&l <fe<^k ^^rt^N^w^r IMagistrate or could have requested the Magistmte to send the complamt to tV^ concerned police station under Section . Instead ofdoing so, the petitioner has [Therefore^ the petitioner has equally efficacious alternative remedy availabl^ under the criminal law to approach the criminal Court for redressal of his gr^vance. However^ he is allowed 10 days^ time from today to make a repfeseni grievances and on receipt of such f| necessary action in accordance -with l^y. With the above obseryation, th: Certified copy as per Rules. ation to respondent No.2 mismg all his ^presentation respondent No.2 will take s petition is disposed of finally. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge