1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 934 OF 2009 Rajesh s/o Maniklal Borana & anr. ...Petitioners VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents ..... Shri S.R.Choukidar, advocate for the petitioners Shri S.D.Kaldate, APP for the respondents. ..... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 5th February, 2010. ORAL ORDER 1 This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to register an offence and investigate the complaints of the petitioners, which are referred to in the prayer clauses. 2 2 According to the petitioners, despite the fact that the petitioner had lodged several complaints, which disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the respondents had not registered any offence against the offenders named in the complaints. The petitioners have accordingly filed this petition. 3 On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply, it is stated that the family of the petitioners and the family of the respondents are engaged in several disputes of civil nature and the complaints, which have been filed by the petitioners, do not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the dispute raised is of civil nature. 4 On the basis of the afore said pleadings, it is urged by Shri Choukidar, learned counsel for the petitioners by relying on the judgment of the Full Bench in Sandeep Rammilan Shukla vs State of Maharashtra & ors. 2009 (1) Mh.L.J. 97, particularly the observations of the Full Bench at paragraph 101 to the effect that, if the first information report discloses commission of a cognizable offence, no discretion is vested with the authority to decide whether to register an offence or not. 3 5 Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to an order passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Cri) No. 68 of 2008, Lalita Kumari vs Govt. of U.P. and Ors., wherein the Supreme Court had issued notices to the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories, Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of Police in respect of the directions which the Supreme Court proposes to issue. 6 This petition in essence seeks issuance of a writ directing the respondents to register an offence and investigate the complaints submitted by the petitioners. A reference in this behalf may usefully be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee and ors. Vs Union of India and ors., (2007) 6 SCC 171. The Supreme Court in the afore said judgment has held as under :- “ The correct position in law, therefore, is that the police officials ought to register the FIR whenever facts brought to their notice show that cognizable offence has been made out. In case of police officials fail to do so, the modalities to be adopted are as set out in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code.” 7 A reference may usefully be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu vs State of U.P. & ors. AIR 2008 4 SC 907, wherein the Supreme Court has held that a writ petition against non-registration of FIR by police is not to be entertained as the aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on an application in writing or can file application before Magistrate under Section 156 (3). 8 In the light of the afore said judgments, according to us, the present petition is not maintainable and therefore, we are inclined to dismiss it. We, however, dismiss the petition, relegating the petitioners to avail the alternate remedies available to the petitioners in law. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) dbm/crwp934.09