^\^ \^,\^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRrLPETITION (Cr.) N0.1249 of 2007 PETITIONER RESroNDENTS 5-. Santosh Kumar Goyal, S/o. Late Shri Ramkala Goyal, age 38 years, R/o. Nandalibhata, Tahsil & P.S. Sakti, District Janjgir - Champa, (CG). Versus 1. State of Ghhattisgarh, through Secr^ary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Shastri Chowk, Raipur (CG). 2. Superintendent of Poltee, Janjgir- Champa (CG). 3. Station Officer, Police Station-SaWi, Jan@ir-Champa (Chhattisgarh). 4. Smt. Chandan Kunwar, W/o. Shri Tahalu Ram Dewangan, age unknown, R/o. Ward No.13, Sakti, Tahsi! & P.S. Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG). (Writ petition under Artide 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Singte Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:• Shri Sourabh Sharma, counset for the petittoner. Shri Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate General forthe State. Shri C.J.K. Rao, counsel for the respondent No.4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 12th day of January, 2009) With the consent of learned counset appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finatty. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made a complainf against the respondent No.3 before the respondent No.2 stating that therespondent No.3 be directed not to interfere in the tegal dispute of civi! nature and to conduct fair enquiry and to seize the documents from possession of respondent No.3, but tilt date the police have not taken any action against the respondent No.3. Thus, the Police authorities are not taking any interest in the matter and not proceeding with the comptaint of the petitioner. Ri^ ^^ ^ws ^ ^°^\ &. ' ^ fciBS?.?.. 1 VsSS":; g W^--"- ,i' 'iiii»£^</'w Raju |NT~ ¥- '^-' 3) I have heard iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pteadings and the documents appended thereto. 4) If the petitioner is not satisfied wth the investigation and the action taken by the Police authorities, he can avait the remedy of fiting a criminal comptaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner fairfy admte that the petitioner has not availed the remedy available under the provisions of Sections 190 and 200 of the Code of Criminat Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.P.C"), it is not expedient to entertain this petition atthis stage. 5) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others1 held that "if any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police officiats in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in S©rtion190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed." (Also see Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others2 and Lalita Kumari Vs. Governmert of Uttdr Pradesh and others3). 6) TTie petition is accordingly dismissed, as not maintainabfe. However, it would be open to the petitioner to take recourse to any other remedy availabte underthe provisions of taw. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotti Judge 1(2007)6SCC171 2 (2008) 2 SCC 409 3 (2008) 7 SCC 164