1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Writ Petition No.176 of 2010 Santosh Savlaram Ankush and ors. Petitioners Vs. Sunita Santosh Ankush & ors. Respondents Mr.Mukesh Pabhari for petitioners. Mr.D.P.Adsule, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. July 7, 2010. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr.Mukesh Pabari, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Adsule, the learned APP appears for the State. 2. The petitioners pray for quashing of the FIR registered on 21/10/2009 (C.R.No.161 of 2009) at the Ambernath police station. They 2 were arrested on 23/11/2008 and subsequently released. It is the petitioners’ case that most of them do not stay with the petitioner no.1 and the alleged incident, even as per the FIR, had taken place at Rajgurunagar, Dist. Pune. He, therefore, submitted that petitioner nos.4 to 9 have been falsely implicated in the said FIR and all of them deserve to be discharged by quashing the FIR. 3. Admittedly a charge-sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer with the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Ulhasnagar and if that be so, the petitioners’ remedy is to apply for discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. When such an alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, we do not see any reason to entertain this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution so as to invoke the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the FIR. 4. Hence the petition is disposed and the petitioners are relegated to the alternative remedy of applying for discharge before the trial Court. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)