1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 451 OF 2011. Vikas Ramdayal Baheti ..vs.. State of Mah. through through its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. A.T.Purohit, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.A.Fulzele, APP for the respondents. C ORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND S.B.DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : 17th SEPTEMBER, 2011. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to register an offence on the basis of the complaints of the petitioner dated 18-19/05/2011 and 25/5/2011 and also prays that respondent no.4 be arrested immediately in connection with the offence committed by him as against the petitioner, and by virtue of prayer clause (B) prays for fixation of responsibility on the erring police authorities. 2 2. According to the petitioner, the report came to be lodged disclosing a commission of the cognizable offence and the police authorities, instead of registering an offence against the accused, have wrongly registered a non-cognizable offence and that too based on incorrect premises. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the necessary Writ in respect of the relief sought for by the petitioner be issued. 3. The petitioner has placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of this court in Sandeep Rammilan Shukla ..vs.. State of Mah. and ors. (2009(1) Mh.L.J. 97) and on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsingh Sharma ..vs.. Kisan Baburao Hazare @ Anna Hazare (2004(3) Mh.L.J. 760). The aforesaid judgments, in the light of the judgments to which we propose to advert, are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 4. The Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee and ors. ..vs.. Union of India and ors. [(2007)6 SCC 171] and in Sakiri Vasu ..vs.. State of U.P. and ors. (AIR 2008 SC 907) has held that the relief of issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the police authorities for registration of the offence is not available to the petitioner. The Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee ..vs.. Union of India and ors. (supra) at paragraph 8 has summarized as follows - 3 (i) In cases where the first information discloses a commission of the cognizable offence, the police authorities should register the F.I.R. (ii) In the event the Police Officer failed to register the FIR, the person aggrieved has an alternate remedy to file private complaint case. 5. The Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu (supra) has held that aggrieved person has the remedy of filing of an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Writ as such would not be available to be issued. 6. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, according to us, the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy available in law which the petitioner may resort to. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed relegating the petitioner to avail efficacious remedy available in law. JUDGE JUDGE. chute 4