^r HIQI-tCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASRUR WRrr PETITION (Cr.t N0.1776 OF 2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Sansar PetrQChemicals t.imfted, through its Director J.P. Jha, S/o Late S.hri^Ugra Nayaran Jha, aged about 58 years, Registered Office at F-123, P.C. Colony, Kanl<arbagh,Patna(Bihar^. Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through ttie Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Mantralaya; D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipyr (GG). 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. /. 8. 9. Director General of Police, Headquarters, Raipur (CG), Police CollectQr/DistrictMagistrate,Raipur{CG). Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur City Superintendent of Police, Raipur Station House Officer, Potice Station Mowa, Pandrj, Raipur (CG). M.S. Ajgalley, presently posted and working as Station House OffiGer, Ppljce Station Mowa, Pandri, Ralpur (CG). M^.Ghatee. Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur:^3G).;:' . '.'•" ,;:;'-' :•:•.:-• , B.R. Rahi, Chief Post Master, Head Post Office.Raipur^G). (Writ petitionunderArticle 226/227 of the Constitutionof India) Single Bench : Hon'ble ShriSatish K. Agnihotri, J. ^iS. Slin' Vlvek Ranj'an Tlwari, counsel for the petfttoner. Shrf Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate General for the State. Shri P.P.Sahu.counsetfortherespondentNo.S. a Shri Ajay Barik, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri^S.K. Beriwal.coungel fortherespondent No.9. ORALORDER (Passedonthis 21st dayofJanuary, 2009) With the consent of learned counsel appean'ng for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2) Leamed counsel appearing for the petiUoner submite that the pstitioner has made a complaint againsttherespondentNos.7toy before lliili .K .-;--K ^^aiSS^gssii.ase^^^;^^^^^^ .-7- .K' Gowri ^». the Police stating that the respondent No.7 in connivance with the respondent Nos.8 & 9 harassing the petitioner by using the auffiority of police in an iltegat and arbitrary manner. buttilt date frie police have not teken any action against the respondent Nos,7 to 9. Thus, the Police aufhorities are not taking any interest in the matter and not proceeding with the complaintofthepefitioner. 3) i have heard leamed counssl appearing for the petitioner.perused the pleadingsandthedocumentsappendedthereto. 4) If the petitioner Is not satisfied with the investigation and the action taken by the Policeauthorities, he can avail the remedy of filing a criminal complaint in Ihe Court ofJudicial Magistrate. Learned counsel appearing forthepetitionerfairtyadmitethatthepetitipnerhasnotavailedtheremedy available under Uie provisions of Sections 190 and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.P.C."), it is not expedient to entertein thjs petiSonatthis stage. 5) The Mon'bleSuprerne Court in the matter of Aleque Padamisee and others Vs; Unton of Ihdia and ofliers held that "if any person is aggrieved bythe inaction ofthe police ofRcials in registering Uie FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read withSection 200 ofthe Code are tobeadoptedandobsetved.''(AfeoseeSakiriVasuvs.StateofU.P.and others^ and Laiita Kumari \fe. ©overnmentof Uttar Pradesh and 6) The petition is aroordingly dismissed, as not maintainable. However, it woutd be open to the petitioner to take recourse to any other remedy avaitable under ttie provisions of law. 7) fionsequenUy.l.A.No.'lstandsdisposedof. ^ ^TJf ^otn ' (2007) 6 SCC 171 2 (2008) 25CC 409 3 (2008V7 SCC 164