Dinesh Choudhary and Others vs State of C.G. and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—Heard.

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 and 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 and networking in the name of Petitioner No. 3, which has about 3000 connections.

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.

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.

Relying on a decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumari v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1322, 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.

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.

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.

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 v. Regional Transport Authority and Ors.), 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 Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the Petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy available under the provisions of Sections 190 and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not expedient to entertain this petition at this staged.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 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 u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. 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 u/s 154(3) and Section 36 Code of Criminal Procedure before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the Magistrate concerned u/s 156(3)."

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.

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.