^11".."' A^R. ^-1-t-07 HIOH GCXJRT OF CHHA1~IIS©MWtiBILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No.S4S9 of2007 Petitioner Ja^sh Kumar Jain, S/&. Vi;ay Kumar Jajri, aged about 27 years, State CoopdinEtor ChhatBsgarh <tf behatf of eayse foundation, R/o. Kas Foundaflon Chouhan Raja Supela Bhilai, Dlst. Durg (CG). Respondents Versys 1} 2) 3) 4) State of Chhattisgarh through Secretaiy, Home Departraent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). Superintendent of Poliea, Distt. Durg (CG). S.H.O. Supela, Bhilai, Dtstt. Durg (CG). Pradeep Singh, S/o. Ramtakhan Sjngh, aged about 27 years, R/o. Back of Chandra Shekhar School, Panchshil Nagar, Duig (Writ Pefition under Article 226 of Constitution of India.) SB: Hon'bte Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Vhrek Sharma, cpunsel for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. ^lvoeat®for the Steta. ORD6R (Passed on 7UI September, 2007) According to teamed counsel appearhig for the petttioner, the petitioner is worklng as State Coordinator in Kas Foundation, whteh is incorporated under Sectlon 25 of Uie CompSnies Act, 1956. The main function of the Corporation is to provide financial su.i^ort in rurat areas of the country. The respondent No.4 Shri Prade^) Slngh was appointed as Assistant Manager at Bhilai Branch of the Company for coordinating two joint Ijability groups coordinator (JCs) for cdlecfing indallmente of repayment of loan from the clients of fte company. The respondent 7 - N®.4was terminated from the seivices on 7-2-2007 due ID some indiscipline committed by him. 2) It is alteged by the petitioner that the company has eome across some information through reliabte sourees that even after termination of the respondent No.4 from the services, he was cotlecting money from the clients/JCs of the company and is not deposfting the same with the company, thereby cheah'ng the company. Due to the above act of the respondent No.4, the company has suffered heavy loss. 3) The petitioner made a written complaint (Annexure P/1) to the respondent No.2 Superintendent <^ Police, Durg. Accordir® to ttie pelitioner, the company has also lodged a complaint agsdost tha respondent No.4 in the Police Station Supela, Dist. Duig. 4) Learned counsel appearing for ttie petitioner submits that by not taking any action against the respondent No.4, the resppndents No. 2 and 3 are violating the provisions of SecUon 154 ef the Gode of Criminat Procedure, 1973, (for short, "Cr.P.C.") v^iich provides registration of information of any cognizable cases and taldng action against fte accused person. 5) I have heard leamed counsel for the petitioner and perused the pfeadings and documents appended thereto. It is evident that the petitioner has not exercised the remedy provided under Section 1S4 (3) ofthe Cr.P.C., by maldng a complaint tolheSuperintendentofPolice concemed against the Police Station thatthe Police Station hasdeclined to registera case in purported letter (AnneXure P/1). 6) Learned counset appearing for the petitioner fairiy admite that the petitioner has not attempted to make a comptaint to eMtier a supertor officer as provided under Section 154 (3) df the Cr.P.C., and he has further not avaited ottier remedy available under the proviaons of Sections 190 and 200 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner without assigning any reasons as to why he has chosen to prefer this petitton seekmg a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to initiate enquiry against the respondent No.4. 7) This Court eannot direct either judteial officer or Uie respondente No.1,2 and 3 where the petitioner has n<rt preferred any comptaint or application under the provislons of law. The only submission of leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Police Station is underan obligation to register a case on the basis of complaint submittsd by fhe person, does not requife any further explanation. The Police Station is admittedly under an obligation to register a case and investi^te the same. 8) Be that as it may, since the petitioner has not availed ttie statutory remedy availabte under the provisions of Sections 154, 190 and 2(X) of the Cr.P.C., it is not expedient to entertain this petifion atthis stage. 9) The petilion is accordingty dismissed as not maintainabte. However, it would be open to the petitioner to take recouree to any other remedy available under the provisions of law. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge Raju