/ 1/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.435 OF 2008 Shri.Subhash Aburao Jadhav & Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Rupesh Nalavade for Petitioners. Mr.H.J. Dedhia, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATED : 3rd APRIL, 2008. P.C.:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned APP for the State. 2. By this petition which is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are seeking following reliefs:- “(a) The petition may be allowed. (b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Resp.No.1 to prosecute Respondent no 2, 3 and 4 for / 2/ negligence of their duties and harassments meted both mentally as well as physically to the petitioners. c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Resp.No.1 to prosecute respondent no 5, 6, 7 for their crime committed as explained above. (d) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct respondents to grant suitable compensation amounting to Rs.6 to 8 Lakhs to the petitioners for the cost incurred towards medical treatments, causing mental and physical agony to the petitioners as well as their family members since 2003 to 2008. (e) Any other and further reliefs may kindly be granted in favor of the applicant as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 3. Petitioners already have filed an application before the Human Rights Commission. Essentially, grievance of the Petitioners is that the police have refused to record their F.I.R. and to investigate into the complaint which / 3/ was filed by them at Dharavi Police Station. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that this Court may direct the Senior Inspector of Police, Dharavi Police Station to register the F.I.R. and investigation to be made against the Accused. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submits that the Petitioners have refused to sign the F.I.R. He also invited my attention to the report which is given by the Human Rights Commission wherein it is recorded that the Petitioners are interested only in recovery of amount of Rs.35,000/- from the Respondent Nos.5 to 7. 4. In our view, submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners cannot be accepted. Petitioners have an alternate remedy of filing a private complaint before the competent court. Hence, writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the Petitioners to adopt appropriate proceedings. ( V.M. KANADE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)