Cri.W.P.No.381 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.381 OF 2011 Prashant s/o Nanasaheb Pandit ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents Mr B.A.Dhengle, Advocate for petitioner Mr S.D.Kaldate, A.P.P. for respondent-State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 17th June 2011 PER COURT 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents – Police Officers to register an offence on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner dated 7.4.2011. 2. In the said complaint, the petitioner had alleged that the petitioner was running his typing and computer job work center and was holding an account with the Bhoom branch of State Bank of India. According to the petitioner a cheque came to be deposited in his account, which was returned back by the Branch Manager of the said Bank with an endorsement, “Refer to Drawer”. According to the petitioner the aforesaid endorsement is an extremely vague and did not give the reasons for bouncing of the cheque. The petitioner further alleges that the cheque number was 093388 and instead the stating the said cheque number in the memo, the Bank officials had stated as 93888. The petitioner, therefore, prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to register the offence. Cri.W.P.No.381 of 2011 2 3. The Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee Vs. Union of India, (2007) 6 SCC 171, has held that such a writ cannot be issued by the Court. At paragraph 8 of the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court had held that the aggrieved person has an alternate remedy of filing a private complaint. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P., AIR 2008 Supreme Court 907 has held that the aggrieved has an alternate remedy of filing appropriate complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Mr Dhengle, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that in the light of the fact that the petitioner is rendered remedyless on account of the bouncing of the cheque and principally, on account of the memo issued by the Bank officials, this Court may exercise the4 writ jurisdiction. In the light of the above judgments, according to us no case for interference is made out and consequently, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioner may avail the alternate remedies available to the petitioner in law. Any observations made by us touching the merits of the case should not be construed as any findings on merits. ( A.V. POTDAR, J. ) ( P.V. HARDAS, J. ) (vvr/381.11criwp)