^M HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH : BILASPUR .-,] PETiTIONERS ^W S-Sli WRIT PETITION No. 2844 of 2003 1. Bhandari S/o. Devgir, aged about 70 years, occupation agriculture. 2. Dwarika S/o. Devgir, aged about years, occupation agricufture. 3. Banwari S/o. Bhandari Ram, aged about 45 years, occupation agriculture. 4. Kishori, S/o. Dwarika Sahu, aged about 41 years, R/o. village Premnagar, Tahsil Surajpur, Dist. Surguja (CG). Versus 1. Ram Narayan, s/o.Narbada, aged bout 50 years, occupation agriculture. 2. Hukum Sai, s/o. Sukhram aged about 45 years, occupation agriculture. 3. Revati Raman, s/o. Sunder Sai, aged about 45years, occupation agriculture. 4. Bhaiyaiat, S/o. Ramkumar, age about 42 years, occupation agricutture. 5. Devdhari, S/o. Shivsahya, aged about 47 years, occupation agriculture. 6. Laxman S/o. Pawan Kumar, aged about48 years.occupation agriculture. 7. Baijnath, S/o. Neelkanth, aged about 65 years, occupation agriculture. 8. Seetaram, S/o. Ram Khitawan, aged about 55 years, occupation agriculture. 9. Sarju, S/o. Shobhai, aged about 55 years, occupation agriculture. 10. Dewan Sahu, Sfo. Shobhai, aged about 45 years, occupation agrfoulture, 11. Rupnarayan, S/o. Ramkhilawan, aged about 50 years, occupation agricutture. 12. D.C. Prasad, S/lo. Sukhram, aged Sbout 45 years, occupation agrfoulture. .^ r"''^ "B S "s.:wy >.:*8^!i]iiB'!13B!!' ^i [)?§;'•w'yvi''.'^y' Vft ^:il:S'.;;i:'^^^^3. - •2-- 13. Haribhajan, S/o. Narmada, aged about 30 years, occupation agriculture. 14. Rajeshwar @ Budaru, S/o. Ram Narayan, aged about 27 years, occupation agriculture. 15. Rajendra @ Foto, S/o. Rupnarayann, aged about 25 years, occupation agriculture. 16. Pratap s/o.Devwlhari, aged about 24 years, loccupation agriculture. 17. Anil, S/o. Dewdhari, aged about 22 years, occupation agriculture. 18. Ramdhari, S/o. Shiv Sahay, aged about 42 years, occupation agriculture. 19. Tejilal, S/o. Ramdhari, aged about 24 years, occupation agriculture. Samaylat, S/o. Ramdhari, aged about 27 years, occupation agriculture. 21. Ram Kumar, s/o. Chandan, aged about 62 years, occupation agrteulture. 22. Ramvilas, s/o. Bhaiyaram, aged about 20 years, occupation agriculture. 23. Ram, S/o. Dharampal, aged about 21 years, occupation agriculture. 24. Noharlal, S/o. Baijnath, age about 30 years. 25. Krishna Kumar, s/o. Ram Dayal, aged about 30 years, occupation agriculture. ^. Birendra S/o. Ganesh aged about 30 years, occupation agriculture. 27. Ramesh, s/o. Ganesh, aged about 35 years, occupation agriculture. 28. Vinod Agrrawal, s/o. Anand Agrawat, aged about 30 years, occupation agriculture. 29. Ghanshyam Das, S/o. Dhaniram, aged about 35 years, occupation agricufture. ^l-..., 1 '^ ^ ••'.iL^--?" •l,- 30. Suresh Agrawal, s/o. Satyanarayan Agrawal, aged about 28 years, occupation business, Respondents No. 1 to 30 are r/o. Premnagar, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (CG). fc.itEiiilliSgss- se:'!!ai;iatt,, 31. Sugreem, s/o. Gangaram, aged about 50 years, occupation agriculture, r/o. village Kedarpur, PO. Premnagar, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (CG). 32) Radhe, S/o. Sugreem, aged about 32 years, occupation agrteulture, R/o. Vitlage Kodwari Dandh, PO Premnagar, Tahsil Surajpur, Dist. Surguja (CG). 33) Manohar Rajwade, S/o. Pawan aged about 40 years, occupatjon agriculture, r/o. village Dumariya, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (CG). 34) Shivram Rajwade, S/o. Budhram. aged about 45 years, occupgtion agricuiture, r/o.vitlage Shrinagar (Ramanujnagar), Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (CG). 35) Sadhu Ram, S/o. Miththu Ram Rajwade, aged about 65 years, r/o.vitlage Shrinagar (Ramanujnagar), Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (CG). 36) Dr. S.K. Raiu, S/o. unknown (Coilector), Distt. Surguja (CG). 37. Tuteshwar Singh, S/o. late Balam Singh, aged about 45 years, (State Minldster Panchayat and Rural Development Department) village Shivpur, PO, Ramanujnagar, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (CG). (Writ petition underArticte 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Ashok Kumar Shukta, counsel for the pet'rtioner. Shri Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate Generat forthe State. r ''. ''•t..^,-... •Slt!E'!;EgWB. -^ ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 1S day of January, 2009) WiSh the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, fhe petition is heard finally. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have made a complaint against the respondents No.36 & 37 before the Poltee Station, but the Police have not lodged FtR against them. Thereafter the petitioners had ^nt their representation through registered post on 9-7-2003 to the Superintendent of Potice, Surguja and Incharge of Police Station Premnagar, but till date the police have not taken any action against the respondents No.36 & 37. Thus, the Police authorities are not taking any interest in the matter and not proceeding with the complaint ofthe petitioners. 3) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 4) !f She petitioners are not satisfied with the investigation and the acfion taken by the Poltee authorities, they can avail the remedy of fi!ing a criminal complaint in the Court of JudiciaE Magistrate. Leamed counseS appearing for the petitioners fairty admits that the petitioners have not availed the remedy available under the provisions of Sections 190 and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.P.C."), it is not expedient to entertain this petition at this 5) The Hon'bte Supreme Court in the matter of Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others held Shat "if any person is aggrieved by the inaction of fhe police officials in registering the FiR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Sacfion 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed." {Also see 1 (2007)68cc 171 -A.. .-,-••' ^ Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others^ and Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others). 6) The petition is accordingly dismissed, as not maintainable. However, it would be open to the petitioner to take recourse to any dther remedy available under the provisions of law. Consequently, IVI.W.P.No.2600 of 2003 also stands dismissed. Sd/- SatishK.Agiiihotri Judge 2 (2008) 2 SCC 409 - 3 (2008)73cc 164