1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.426 OF 2009 Nivrutti s/o Machhindra Barse ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ----- Shri A.B. Gaikwad, Advocate for the petitioner Shri B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for the respondent/State ----- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 14th October, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard Shri Gaikwad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sonawane, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is an unique case that the petitioner Sarpanch is making allegations against police officer of corruption, misconduct and involvement in illegal activities. It is submitted that, the petitioner has also filed a 2 private complaint before the concerned Magistrate bearing M.A. No.133/2009 which according to counsel, relates to criminal misconduct, which is punishable under the indian Penal Code, against the concerned police officer. This petition, according to counsel, is restricted to involvement of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in demand of money, involvement in illegal corrupt activities. The counsel further demands compensation of Rs.1000/- per day in respect of the vehicle of the petitioner. The affidavit-in-reply is also filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4. They have refuted the allegations of the petitioner. The learned A.P.P. has submitted, on instructions, that the Sub-Divisional Officer is enquiring into the matter on the orders passed by the Court. The learned A.P.P. submitted that there are efficacious alternate remedies where the petitioner can approach and already the petitioner has approached one forum by filing private complaint. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that a trap was arranged by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, but it failed. The anxiety of the petitioner is that this Court should direct the highest authorities of the Anti-Corruption Bureau to initiate enquiry or some proceedings against respondent Nos.3 and 4. 4. We have considered the material placed before us, the reply filed and perused the provisions of the Prevention of 3 Corruption Act, 1988 and more particularly Section 17 of the Act. In view of the facts of the case, we find that the petitioner has efficacious alternate remedies to prosecute his grievance. Admittedly the petitioner has filed a private complaint before the Magistrate against the respondent Nos.3 and 4, but the petitioner’s counsel submits that, that complaint is filed for alleged offences committed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 under the Indian Penal Code. At this stage, we find that, in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction, no interference is called for in the prayers made by the petitioner. 5. For redressal of the grievance of the petitioner, the petitioner may still resort to other alternate remedies and forums which could investigate, enquiry into the material and evidence, if any. With this view, we are not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition. The Criminal Writ Petition is dismissed. We clarify that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations made and the replies filed. [ SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] fmp/criwp426.09