AFK HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG’ARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 4195 of 2009 Dinesh Choudhary, S/o Late Ramnath Chowdhary, aged about 48 years, R/o Kosaban', Korba, Tahsil 83 Distn'ct Korba, Chhattisgarhg Managing Partner, -M/ s Pragati Entertainment, Hotel Top in Town, 1T1 Chowk, Kosabari, Korba Tab. 85 Dist. Korba CG. Petitioxxers 1. Pragati Entertainment, Hotel Top in Town, ITI Chowk, Kosabari, Korba, Tah. 8r. Dist. Korba, CJG. 2. Grand Pragati Entertainment, Swalnim Bhawan, Beside Tarun Chhattisgarh Press, Tilak Marg, Budhwari Bazar Road, Korba, Tah. 8r, Diet: Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3. Versus Respondents l. State of Chhattisgarh, Department of Home, Mantralava, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. M/ s. Grand Entertainment 66 Event Pvt. Ltd. having its i‘egistered oiiice at Sanjay Gandhi Chowk, Station Road, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, through its Director Shri Harminder Singh Hora, S/o Amrik Singh Hora, R/o A-l, Sai Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil 8a District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Shri Harminder Singh Hora, Slo Amrik Singh Hora, R/o A-l, Sai Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil 85 Distn'ct Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Shli Gurueharan Singh Hora C/o Shri Hanninder Singh Hora S/o Amrik Singh Hora, R/o A~1, Sai Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil 85 District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Shri Sandeep Kanwar, Sio Shii Nanki Ram 5. Kanwar, Proprietor M/ s Pratik Entertainment Korba, RIO Korba, Tahsil 85 District Korba, Chhattisgarh. Shri Shailendra ‘Singh, C/o Shri Sandeep Kanwar, Sfo Shn‘ Nanki Ram Kanwar, Proprietor M/s Pratik Entertainment Korba, R/o Korba, Talisil 8r, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 6. Shri Ashwani Kumar Sharma, C/o Shri Sandeep Kanwar S/o Shri Nanki Ram Kanwar, Proprietor M/ s Pratik Entertainment Korba, Rjo Korba, Tahsil & District Korba, Chattisgarh. Registrar, Firms 8r. Societies, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 9. Collectory Korba, Tahsil 85 District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (0. / 7Q Supen'ntendéilt of Police, Korba, Tahsil & District Korba, Chhattisgarh, Staton House Inchargc, Police Station, Kofoa Kotwali, Tahsil &- ' Distn‘ct Korba, Chhat‘tjsgarh. Harish Ghanwat, Branch Managsr, Grand TV Korba, Swamim Bhawan, Beside Tarun Chhattisgarh Press, Tilak Marg, Budhwan' Bazar Road, Korba, Tah. & Dist. Korba, Chhattisgarh. 12. (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Rajkamal Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri M. P. S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. l, 8, 9, 10 and 11. O R D E R (oral) ( Passed on this 8‘11 day of August, 2009 ) Heard. 1. Leamed counsel appealing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 Dinesh Choudhaiy is managing paitner of the petitioner No.2 Pragati Entertainment and he is also a working partner of the petitioner No.3 Grand Pragati Entertainment. The respondent No.2 M/s Grand Entertainment 8a Event Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act. An agreement was executed on 17th September 2008 (Annexure P/3) between the respondent No.2 and petitioner No.3. In accordance with the agreement the petitioners No. 1 and 2 deposited Rs. 2O Lacs with the respondent No.2 by account payee cheques. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 have further invested more than Rs. 38 Lacs on equipments etc. Thereafter, the petitioners started business of cable TV 85 networking in the name of petitioner No.3, which has about 3000 connections. 2. Later, the CCN T-V tried to stop the expansion of petitioner No.3 by illegal and criminal activities. The respondent No.2 also joined hands in conspiracy. Because of the business rivalry the petitioner No.1 and his sons were implicated in false police cases of loot and da'coity. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent No.5 is son of Home Minister of the State and on his instance the police is not acting in impartial 71 manner. The petitioner madeVa comphint on 6.7.2009 (Annexum Pl 7), wherein no action was taken. The respondent No.4 Shri Gurucharan Singh Hora unauthoxisedly appointed the respondent No.6 Shri Shajlendra Singh and respondent No.7 Shri Ashwani Kumar Shanna in the Korba omce of Grand TV-Lwhich is run by the petitioner No.3. Because of the conspiracy of the respondents No. 2 to 7 as well as illegal and criminal activities, many people often enter the premises of the petitioner No.3 and unnecessarily interfere with the business. The petitioners have reasonable apprehension that they may be lodged in false prosecution and their personal as well as business liberty is at stake. Learned counsel further submits that practically, the petitioners are not in a position to runtheir business without fear. Because of all these activities of the respondents, the petitioners are also suffering huge financial loss. Thus, the petitioners have prayed that the respondents No. 1 and 9 to 11 may be directed to take appropriate action on the complaints made by the petitioner No. 1, the respondents may be directed not to interfere with the cable TV business of the petitioners and the respondents No. 2, 3 and 8 may be directed to ensure proper registration of the petitioner No.3. The petitioners have also prayed that the respondents No. 9 to 11 may be directed to provide adequate security to the petitioner No. 1 and his family. Relying on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumari vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi ) and Ors.1, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the concerned police ohicials are dyty bound to registera case on the basis of information disclosing cognizable odence. The complaints made by the petitioners disclose cognizable offences but the police authorities have not taken any action in right perspective. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the documents appended thereto, this Court is of the opinion that the petition involves disputed question of facts which cannot be gone into the writ jurisdiction. . IAIR 2006 sc 1322 O‘l \ z \ @U 'z‘ From tha facts of the case on hand, it appéars, that the respondent No.2 _is a rival party and the respondents No. 9 to l 1 are the governmentofflcers. The direction to the respondents No. 2, 3 and 8 cannot be granted, as if there is any agreement in existence the same can be registered on proper application filed before the competent authority. So far as the criminal and illegal activities of the private respondents are concerned, the petitioners may very well avail the remedy in accordance with the provisions of law. This Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 910/2009 (Saiyad Sabbir Ali Vs. Regional Transport Authority & others), decided on 12.22009, has held that “If the petitioner is aggrieved by the‘inaction an the part of the Police or he is not satisfied with the action taken by the Police, he can avail the remedy‘ofji'ling a criminal complaint in the Court ofJudiciaI Magistrate Learned counsel appearingfor he petitionerfairly admits that the petitioner has not availed the remedy available under the provisions of Sections 190 and 200 of the Cr,P.C. Sinw the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy ayailable under the provisions of Sections 190 and 200 of the Cr.P,C., it is not expedient to entertain this petition at this stage. " Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. 55 thersz, in para 25 observed that “We have elaborated on the above matter because we often fmd that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/ or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes/to the High Court to hle a writ petition or a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his alternative remedy, hrst under Section 154 (3) and Section 36 CrPC before the police ohicers concerned, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the Magistrate concerned under Section 156 (3)3? 2 (2008) 2 sec 409 t o GQ\ SO far as the diraction for poliCe protection to the family of petitioner No.1 is concerned, it is expected that the concerned police authorities may take appropriate steps on the request, if any, made by the petitioner for the purpose. 10. In View of the above, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to raise their grievance before any other forum that may be available under provisions of law, if so advised. Sdl— Satish K. Agnihotrix‘ Judge Thakur