HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 5333 of2007 Petitioner Itwari, aged about 60 years, sou of Late Jhadu Ram, resident ofvillage Bharda, Tah. Gurur, Distt. Dvig (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, through fhe Secretary, Departm.ent of Hoiue Affairs, Dau Kalyau Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Superintendent of PoUce, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) Station House Officer, PoUce Station Arjuni, Distt. Dhamtari(C.G.) WRFT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrrUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) ShriT. K. Tiwan, Advocate for the petitionfir. Shri M. P. S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents. O RD E R (orall (Passed on this 13*h day ofJuly, 2009) Heard. Leamed counsel appeacmg for the petttioner subinits that the petitioner is havit^ ancestral property at viUage Shyamtarai, Distnct Dham.tan. When the peUtioner was aged about 4 to 5 years his father died and his m.0ther reinamed with one Firanta. Thus, the petitioner was brought by his grand-fafher aad grand-iaother. Later on, fhe petitioiier came to lauow fh.at his aaaie was deleted from the revenue records fix>m the ancestral property. The petitioner made a complaint on 27.3.2007 (Aimexure P/3) to the Station House Officer, Ftolice Station Arjuni, District - Dbaiatari, regardiag fhe ofFence coinmitted by fhe re^renue officers, viUagers aud soine of the property dealers of District Dhamtari but no acUou has been taken. Hence ttus petition. I have heard leamed counsel appeariii^ for fhe petitioner aad perused the pleadings aad dociunents appended fhereto. / '•"'^.^^ 6. This Court in Mohd. Anish Memon Vs. State of C.G. 85 others1 observed fhat "Ifthe PoUce Station is not recording the mfonnation as refexred iu sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the Code of Criininal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.P.C."), coiaplaiat can be niade to fhe Superixitendent of P&Uce ofthe Distnct conceraed. Even iffhe Superintendent ofPoUce fails to take any action, the com.plamant caa take recourse to provision ofSection 190 read with Section 200 ofthe Cr.P.C." Further, this Court iu Writ Petition (C) No. 910/2009 (Saiyad Sabbir AIi Vs. Regional Transport Authority & others), decided on 12.2.2009, obseryed as uiider : '4. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the pari of the Polioe or he is not satisfied imth the action taken by the Police, he can avail the remedy offiling a crhnincd complcdnt in the Court ofJudidal Magistrate. Leamed oounse? appearing for the petitioner fcdrly adinits that the petitioner has not availed the remedy availdble under the provisions of Sections 190 and 200 of the Cr.P.C. Since the petitioner has rwt availed the statufory remedy available under the provisions ofSections 190 and 200 qf the Cr.P.C., it is not expedt'en< (o enfertcu'n. this petition af this stage." The Supreme Court ia the matter of Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others2 held fhat 'If any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials in registering the PIR, fhe niodalities contauied in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted aad observed.' (Also see Saldri Vasu Vs. State ofU.P. 88 others3). In view of the above, if the petitioner has any gnevaace, he inay take recoiirse to fhe reiaedy, avaUable under provisions of law, if so adwised. The petition is accordingly dismissed, as not inamtamable. However, it would be open to fhe petitioner to tatee recourse to any other reinedy avaUable under the provisions oflaw. Thalmr 1 2009(1) C.G.L.J. 315 2 {(2007) 6 SCC 171} 3 (2008) 2 SCC 409 Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge