1 4.wp.1518-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1518 OF 2010 Shri Mahadeo Maruti Madane and others. ..Petitioners. Vs. Mr.Atul B. Chavan and others. ..Respondents. .......... Mr.U.B. Nighot, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.Vijay Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.5,7 & 8. Mr.Amol Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.9. Mr.Jaydeep D. Mane, Advocate for Respondent No.10. Mr.K.V. Saste, A.P.P. for the State. .......... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 1st MARCH, 2011. P.C. 1. Five reliefs are claimed in this Petition. However, at the time of argument, Counsel for the Petitioners has confined his arguments only in the context of reliefs (a), (b) & (d) of the Petition. 2. Insofar as prayer clause (d) is concerned, the Petitioners are praying for directions against Respondent Nos.11 to 16 to forthwith register criminal offence under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under other Sections for causing death of two persons by negligence and for becoming responsible for causing serious PPD 2 4.wp.1518-10 injuries to one person. That offence be registered against Respondent Nos.1 to 10. The grievance of the Petitioners is that work of construction of a bridge had commenced at the spot as back as in the year 1999, but, the same was still incomplete on the date of the incident on 17.7.2009. According to the Petitioners, the spot where the incident occurred, no sign-boards were placed nor any proper diversion or road was provided at the spot. This argument though attractive at the first blush, is belied by the spot panchnama dated 18.7.2009 and the affidavit of the concerned officials on record. The spot panchnama gives the graphic description of how the accident occurred and more particularly the circumstances in which the same must have occurred. It is attributable to rash driving of the motorcycle by the rider and his two companions. The question of issuing directions to register FIR for offence under Section 304 Part-II against the Respondents in the fact situation of the present case cannot be countenanced. For the same reason, the question of offering compensation to members of Madane family, as is prayed in terms of prayer clauses (a) & (b) does not arise, as the motorcycle was driven in rash and negligent manner as is noticed form the spot panchnama and affidavit of the concerned officials on record. 3 4.wp.1518-10 3. We make it clear that this observation is not an expression or final opinion on the merits of the contentions raised by the Petitioners. The Petitioners are free to take recourse to such other remedy as may be permissible by law. The same will have to be considered on its own merits. 4. Petition is, therefore, disposed of on above terms. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)