IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Wn't Petition (CL! No. 4494 of 2008 Petitioner Vexsus Respondents 1. go 5° s» Bholeshwar Singh Sa’hu, S/o Lam Shn' Sanwat Ram Sahu, aged about 40 yams, R/o Viilage Sohpur, Post. Nipani, RS. Gurur, Tahsi1~ Gurur, Distt. Dung (C.G.) State of Ch hattisgarh, Through — Secretaly Home D.K.S. Bhawan, Rajpur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Superintendent of Police burg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Stah'on House Omcer of the RS. Gurur, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Channula] Sahu, S/o Ramha Ram Sahu, aged about 4O years, Rfo Village Sohpur, Post. Nipani, RS. .Gurur, ’I‘ahsi1 — Gurur, Distt. Durg (C. G.) W (SB: Hon’ble Shri Sa1ish K. Agnihou‘i J.) Shri N. K. Chattexjee, Ad§oeate for the petitioner. Shn' Vinay Han‘t, Deputy Advocate General for the Iespondems No. 1 to 3/State, ORDER ‘ (Passed on this 18$ Day of August, 2008) 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. the matter is heard finally. Learned counsel appealing for the petinoner submits that on 13.4.2008 the petitioner reported to the Police that his agricultum produce of ‘gmm crop’ was lying on the roof at his Village Sohpur, which was put on nre by the respondent No.4. The matter was reduced in writing at Rojnamcha Sanha No. 417 (Annexure P/ 1) in the Police Station — Gurur, District — Durg, but no further action was taken by the police against the respondent No.4. Being aggieved, the petitioner made representations to the Station House 0$cer, Police Station Gurur as Well as the Superintendent of Police Durg to WW WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA prosecute the respondent No.4 but thc police have not taken swcient action against the respondent No.4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the panics and perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedum, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) provides. for making a complaint to the Superintendent of Police concerned against the Police Station that the Police Station has declined to register a case. lt is not a case Where the complaint lodged by the pedtioner was not written by the police and no investigation was conducted at ail. From the papers it is evident that the police has recorded statements of witnesses which shows that the investigation is going on. If the petitioner is not satished with the action taken by the Police, he can avail the remedy of ming a criminal complaint in the Court of Judicial Mag‘strate. Learned counsel appearing .Ifor the petitioner fairly admits that the petitioner has not availed the remedy available under the provisions of Sections 190 and 200 ofthe Cr.P.C. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy available under the provisions of Sections 190 and 200 of the Cr.P.C., it is not expedient to entertain this petition at this stage. The Supreme Court in the matter of Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others { (2007) 6 SCC 1’7 1} held that ‘If any person is agyieved by the inaction of the police omcials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed.’ The petition is accordingly dismissed, as not maintainable. However, it would be open to the petitioner to take recourse to any other remedy available under the provisions of law. Sdl— ‘Satish K. Agnihgtri , Judge p; Mr: ‘ \r__l_i’ ,‘\ p