1 250.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.250 OF 2011 M/s.Shree Samarth Spark Developers through their partners ...Petitioners Versus Shri Mohan Singh Chittodiya & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Dinyar Madan, Sr.Counsel i/b Mr.S.A.Sawant for Petitioner. Mr.Ganesh Gole for Respondent No.1. Mr.K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for State. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:- FEBRUARY 9, 2011. P.C. 1. The petitioners have already resorted to remedy before the Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioners will have to pursue the said remedy to its logical end and cannot be allowed to invoke two parallel proceedings for the same relief. This is not an expression of opinion either way on the maintainability of application filed by the petitioners before the Metropolitan Magistrate which is numbered as Miscellaneous 90/M/10. We have no manner of doubt that the concerned Court will examine the said application on its own merits in accordance with law. 2 250.11 2. To get over this position, Counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance in this Petition is with regard to subsequent incidents which have occurred after filing of the complaint by the petitioner before the Magistrate. The complaint was filed on 17th August, 2010, whereas, the incidents which the petitioners would like to agitate are subsequent thereto. 3. If there are subsequent incidents, the petitioners have two options available. In the first place, to approach the local Police Station and register their complaint which will have to be proceeded by the concerned Police Station on its own merits in accordance with law. If the local Police fails to take any action in the matter, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the concerned Court by way of criminal complaint, if so advised. 4. In the circumstances, this Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to pursue their other remedies. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)