6? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASFUR WRI? PETETION {CL} ND. E33 OF 23% PETiTi§NER RESPONDENTS Santosh Kumar Agrawai, Slo Shri Vijay Agrawal, aged abaut 26 years, R/o viilage Bamhanidih, P‘S. Bamhanidih, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG). Versus 1. State of C‘nhattisgarh, ‘ihrough the Secretary, Heme Degamnent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Coiiector, District Janjgir-Champa (CG). 3. Sub Divisionai Magistrate, Champa (CG). The Tehsildar, Champa (CG). 5. The Superintendent of Felice, Janjgir- Champa (CG). 6. The Station tncharge, P.S. Bamhanidih, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir—Champa (CG). 7. Amit Kumar Saraf, 8/0 Rajendra Kumer saraf, aged about 39 years, Rio viilage Bamhanidih, District Janjgir-Champa (CG). (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri H.P. Agrawai, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate Generat for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 11'“ day of December; 2008) With the consent of learned couneei appearing for the parties, the petition is heard hnaiiy. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made a compiaint against the respondent No.7 before the Police Station by stating that the respondent No.7 has encroached the Government land and raised itiegai construction on _ the said land. On the basis of the complaint of the petitioner, the 3 w ....., W W poiice started invesiigation. but tili dafe they have not med chailan before the competent Court. Thus, the Police Officers are not taking any interest in the matter and not proceeding with the complaint of the petitioner. 3) t have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pteadings and the documents appended thereto. 4) if the petitioner is not satished with the investigation and the action taken by the Police, he can avail the remedy or' fliing a criminat complaint in the Court of Judiciat Magistrate. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly admits that the petitioner has not avaiied the remedy avaiiabie under the provisions of Sections 190 and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C."), it is not expedient to entertain this petition at this stage; 5) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Aieque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others1 heid that “if any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police otticials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed.” (Also see Sakiri Vasu vs. $tate of UR and others? and Laiita Kumari Vs, Government of Uttar Pradesh and othersg). 6) The petition is accordingly dismissed, as not maintainabie. However, it wouid be open to the petitioner to take recourse to any other remedy available under the provisions of law. i a \ («o H Sci/- Saash K. Agnihotri l Judge Gown ’ ‘l 2 (200T) 6 scc 171 (2008) 2 soc 409 3 (2008) 7 soc 164 f\.‘5