HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition C 4195 of 2009
1 Dinesh Choudhary
2 Pragati Entertainment
3 Grand Pragati Entertainment
...Petitioners
Versus
1 State of Chhattisgarh
2 M/s. Grand Entertainment & Event Pvt ltd
3 Shri Harminder Singh Hora
4 Shri Gurucharan Singh Hora
5 Shri Sandeep Kanwar
6 Shri Shailendra Singh
7 Shri Ashwani Kumar Sharma
8 Registrar Firms & Societies
9 Collector Korba
10 Superintendent of Police Korba
11 Staton House Incharge Police
12 Harish Ghanwat
...Respondents
! Shri Rajkamal Singh
^ Shri M P S Bhatia
CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J
Dated: 08/08/2009
: JUDGEMENT
O R D E R oral
(Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India)
Heard.
1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits
that the petitioner No.1 Dinesh Choudhary is managing
partner 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 & 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. 20 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 & networking in the name of
petitioner No.3, which has about 3000 connections.
2. Later, the CCN TV 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 dacoity. 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 manner. The petitioner
made a complaint on 6.7.2009 (Annexure P/7), wherein no
action was taken. The respondent No.4 Shri Gurucharan Singh
Hora unauthorisedly appointed the respondent No.6 Shri
Shailendra Singh and respondent No.7 Shri Ashwani Kumar
Sharma in the Korba office of Grand TV which 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.
3. Learned counsel further submits that practically, the
petitioners are not in a position to run their 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.
4. 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 officials are duty bound to register a
case on the basis of information disclosing cognizable
offence. The complaints made by the petitioners disclose
cognizable offences but the police authorities have not
taken any action in right perspective.
5. 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.
6. From the facts of the case on hand, it appears, that
the respondent No.2 is a rival party and the respondents No.
9 to 11 are the government officers. 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.
7. 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 12.2.2009, has held that “If the petitioner is
aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Police or he is
not satisfied with the action taken by the Police, he can
avail the remedy of filing a criminal complaint in the Court
of Judicial Magistrate. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner fairly admits that the petitioner has not availed
the remedy available under the provisions of Sections 190
and 200 of the Cr.P.C. Since the petitioner has not availed
the statutory remedy available under the provisions of
Sections 190 and 200 of the Cr.P.C., it is not expedient to
entertain this petition at this stage.”
8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P.
& others2, in para 25 observed that “We have elaborated on
the above matter because we often find 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 file 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, first under Section 154 (3) and Section 36 CrPC
before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no
avail, by approaching the Magistrate concerned under Section
156 (3).”
9. So far as the direction 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.
J U D G E
