1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Appellate Side Criminal Writ Petition No.2248 of 2008 Prashant Narayan Mithagri & anr. Petitioners Vs. Suresh Laxhman Patil & ors. Respondents Mr.Anilkumar Patil for petitioners. Mr.Rajesh Patil for resp.nos.1, 3 and 4. Mr.C.G.Gavnekar with Mrs.Deepa Punde for resp.nos.2 & 5. Mr.P.A.Pol, PP for State. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & SMT.ROSHAN S. DALVI,JJ. August 14, 2009. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr.Anilkumar Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have perused the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents including Shri R.A. Joshi, Police Sub Inspector presently attached to Revdanda Police Station, Dist. Raigad. The petitioners pray for two substantial reliefs viz. (a) to direct the respondent nos.3, 6, 7 and 8 to look into the petitioners’ complaint and lodge FIR in respect of the incident dated 11/1/2008 in which the petitioner no.1 and his mother were gravely humiliated, wrongfully confined and in their 2 presence, the plinth cum foundation of their house was demolished and (b) to issue an order against respondent nos.3, 6, 7 and 8 to pay compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) to the petitioners. 2. There is no dispute that the incident complained of has taken place in the presence of Police, the Police Patil (Respondent no.3), Chief of the Tantamukti Committee (respondent no.4) and a host of villagers, all of whom wanted to widen the road and in that process the plinth cum foundation of the petitioners’ house house was demolished, some trees were felled and the petitioners lost some land of their ownership. The incident as such of taking over the petitioners’ land for road widening has not been disputed and it has been contended by almost all the respondents that the petitioners voluntarily offered the land for road widening and for the betterment of the village. The petitioners partly dispute this statement and state that they had offered only some area and not the entire area. The petitioners also allege that the Police Patil was present at the spot and he has filed a false affidavit before this Court which falsity is clear on the face of the affidavit filed by the Police Sub Inspector. 3 3. For all these contentions and appropriate reliefs, the petitioners, in our considered opinion, are required to be relegated to the alternative remedy of filing a criminal complaint and / or approaching the Civil Court for claiming compensation. Either in the criminal complaint or in the civil proceedings the petitioners are not estopped from filing the certified true copies of the affidavits filed in this petition, in support of their claim. We, therefore, do not find it appropriate to entertain this petition and it would be rather in the interest of the petitioners that they are relegated to the alternative remedy. 4. Hence the petition is disposed with liberty to the petitioners to file criminal complaint and / or initiate appropriate civil proceedings. (SMT.ROSHAN S. DALVI,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)