1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.235 OF 2009 Ms.Kumudini Yuvraj Patil .. Petitioner V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.P.M.Pradhan i/by Ms.Preeti B.Walimbe for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Gadkari, APP for the State. CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 13TH JULY, 2009. P.C.: . The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the alleged inaction of respondents 2 to 4. According to the petitioner, respondents 2 to 4 have failed to register the FIR against Mr.Ramakant Paranjape and Mr.Sainath Shethe, though the complaint filed by her squarely makes out the offences of cheating etc.against them. 2. We have heard Mr.Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and Mr.A.S.Gadkari, learned APP for the State. Mr.Pradhan reiterated the contentions raised in the petition. He submitted that the police are not registering the case against Ramakant Paranjape and Sainath Shethe because they are the close associates of one Kisan Kathore who is a Member of the Legislative Assembly 2 3. Mr.Gadkari, learned APP on instructions from Mr.A.D.Kumbhar, PSI attached to Badlapur Police Station stated that the police have conducted preliminary inquiry and are of the opinion that the complaint involves civil dispute. 4. In Aleque Padamsee and Others V/s Union of India and Others, (2007) 6 SCC 171, the Supreme Court was dealing with a somewhat similar fact situation. The Supreme Court observed as under:- “6. 4. When the information is laid with the police but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant [can under section 190 read with section 200 of the Code lay] the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate after recording evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate into the offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and [could] issue process to the accused. These aspects have been highlighted by this Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees’ Union (Regd.) v.Union of India – (1996) 11 SCC 582, (SCC p.583, para 4). It was specifically observed that a writ petition in such case is not to be entertained. The above position was again highlighted in Gangadhar Janardhan Mhatre v.State of Maharashtra, (2004) 7 SCC 768, Minu Kumari v.State of Bihar (2006) 4 SCC 359 and 3 Hari Singh v.State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 733.” 5. Similar view is taken by the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu V/s.State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2008) 2 SCC 409. We may quote relevant paragraphs of the said judgment:- “25. 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 alternating remedy, first under section 154 (3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C.before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the Magistrate concerned under Section 156 (3).” “26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C.or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies? “ 6. In view of the settled position of law, Mr.Pradhan learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner will file a private complaint. We therefore make it clear that if such a complaint is filed, 4 learned Magistrate shall deal with it in accordance with law. On the merits of the case we have not expressed any opinion. All contentions raised by the petitioner in the petition are kept open. All remedies contemplated in law and as noticed by the Supreme Court in the above judgments are open to the petitioner. Petition is disposed of. ( SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)