JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the respondent herein seeking damages/compensation from him for making defamatory report against the petitioner, thereby causing loss to his prestige, position, name and fame. 2. The facts-in-brief, as projected by the petitioner in the writ petition, are that one policeman, namely, Bilal Ahmed made an attack on him on 09.04.2010 in the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Srinagar. He reported the matter to the higher authorities in the Police Department. Accordingly, the respondent, who was then posted as a Chief Prosecuting Officer in the Subordinate Courts at Srinagar, was appointed as an Inquiry Officer by the Sr. Superintendent of Police to enquire into the whole matter. It is alleged that the respondent without conducting any inquiry or recording the statements of witnesses present at the time of occurrence made a biased, prejudiced and defamatory report against him only to tarnish his image and character and save the policeman who had made an attack on him. A copy of the said report dated 05.06.2010 is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-1. Further, it is averred in the petition that the petitioner agitated before the higher authorities in the police department for conducting fresh inquiry as per law. It is contended that in the meantime a new incumbent had taken over as the Chief Prosecuting Officer and he was appointed as the Inquiry Officer to conduct de novo inquiry for the attack on petitioner by policeman, namely, Bilal Ahmed. It is pleaded that after conducting proper inquiry, the Chief Prosecuting Officer submitted a detailed contradictory report to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Srinagar, wherein while holding the writ petitioner a very sober and decent man, it was recommended that the report submitted by Zulfikar Ahmad, the then Chief Prosecuting Officer, as regards the character, conduct and activities of writ petitioner may be expunged. Hence the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking compensation from the respondent for making defamatory report against him, thereby causing damage to his image and character. 3. Objections have been filed on behalf of respondent. It is averred that on the basis of petitioner's complaint against one policeman, namely, Bilal Ahmed, Sr. Superintendent of Police entrusted the investigation to the respondent herein. 3. Objections have been filed on behalf of respondent. It is averred that on the basis of petitioner's complaint against one policeman, namely, Bilal Ahmed, Sr. Superintendent of Police entrusted the investigation to the respondent herein. Further, it is averred that after conducting inquiry, respondent submitted report to the SSP, Srinagar and in the fact-finding-report he did not use any defamatory or derogatory remarks against the petitioner. It is insisted that the petitioner had also filed a criminal complaint against the respondent herein under Section 499 RPC before the Court of learned 1st Additional Munsiff, Srinagar on 12.04.2014 on the same set of facts, i.e., for defaming and causing harm to the reputation of petitioner. The learned trial Court before issuing any process, referred the matter to SSP, Srinagar for investigation in the light of the allegations made in the complaint. SSP concerned entrusted the investigation to SP City, East Zone, Srinagar for conducting inquiry and submitting the detailed report before the learned trial Court. It is contended that the petitioner did not pursue the said complaint and the same came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court on 11.02.2015 for want of non-prosecution. However, it is insisted that the inquiry entrusted to the SP City is still pending. Further, it is contended that the petitioner has raised disputed questions of fact and the same can only be proved during the course of trial in the Court of competent jurisdiction and not before this Court. 4. I have heard the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondent. I have also perused the pleadings on the file and the documents annexed thereto. 5. In my view the petitioner has failed to make out a case and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the following grounds: i. The petitioner has specifically pleaded in paragraph 19 of the writ petition that he has not filed any other petition on the subject before any other Court. This petition came to be filed on 22.11.2014, when, on the said date, a criminal complaint under Section 499 RPC on the same set of facts had been pending, having been filed by the petitioner against the respondent herein, before the Court of learned 1st Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, for defaming and causing harm to his reputation. This petition came to be filed on 22.11.2014, when, on the said date, a criminal complaint under Section 499 RPC on the same set of facts had been pending, having been filed by the petitioner against the respondent herein, before the Court of learned 1st Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, for defaming and causing harm to his reputation. Petitioner has not made a whisper in writ petition as regards the complaint filed by him before the 1st Additional Munsiff, Srinagar. He allowed parallel proceedings on same subject matter. When he sensed to fail to prove and establish his case before trial Court, he allowed it to be dismissed for want of prosecution. The trial Court dismissed petitioner's complaint on 11.02.2015. This fact has not been brought before this Court by petitioner, but by respondent. It would have been appropriate for petitioner to pursue the proceedings that had been put into motion by him while filing complaint under Section 499 RPC. This Court cannot sit into shoes of trial Court and exercise the powers as are otherwise available under a well oriented mechanism, in which a full fledged trial takes place and provides adequate and reasonable opportunity to both parties to prove their case. ii. The basis for claiming damages from the respondent herein is Communication No. DSC/2011/2320, dated 10.08.2011, which is in the shape of a fact-finding-report. The said communication alone cannot be made basis for claiming compensation from the respondent herein unless there is some concrete evidence against him for the allegations as alleged by the petitioner herein. Otherwise too, Communication No. DSC/2010-ENQ/ 1614-15, dated 05.06.2010 is altogether different and contradicts communication dated 10.08.2011. Therefore, as discussed above, the petitioner has independent efficacious remedy; he cannot agitate the matter by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. iii. Loss of reputation and damage to the petitioner is a disputed question of fact, which warrants inquiry into various factual aspects of the matter, and the same cannot be adjudicated upon and decided by this Court in writ jurisdiction, iv. The present petition is also not maintainable in view of the fact that the person, against whom the damage is sought, is an individual person, not a State or a statutory authority amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. The present petition is also not maintainable in view of the fact that the person, against whom the damage is sought, is an individual person, not a State or a statutory authority amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. If the petitioner wants compensation from a private person, he should take recourse to the remedy available under the common law. The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies, under the general law, civil.or criminal, are available. The jurisdiction is special and extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly. Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to enforce Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution of India through the High Courts. It is a Public Law remedy. For redressal of private wrongs, suits are to be filed in the regular Civil Courts. It is a Private Law remedy. 6. I have also examined the judgments referred to by the petitioner. In my view the same have no relevance to the facts and circumstances of present case. 7. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the writ petition; the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected miscellaneous petition(s), if any. Petition dismissed