cwp708.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.708 OF 2010 Ganpat Vithalrao Ghodke, R/o-Ghodka Rajuri, Tq. & Dist-Beed. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Rameshwar Tukaram Renge, Police Inspector, ACB, Beed, 2) Gajanan s/o Luximikant Bhatlavande, Serving as API, Pimpalner Police Station, R/o-Pimpalner, Dist-Beed, 3) Ramesh Rambhau Kale, (Police Constable B. No.357), R/o-Samta Colony, Pimpalner, Dist-Beed. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. M.A. Tandale Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. K.G. Patil, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. ... cwp708.10 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 18TH APRIL, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner filed a complaint on 11th July, 2010 with Shivajinagar Police Station, Beed, which was registered as F.I.R. No.61 of 2010, for an offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1)(3) read with Section 13 (3) of the Anti-Corruption Act. The counsel submits that in connection with the said crime, charge-sheet has been filed against the Police Head Constable - Ramesh Rambhau Kale, who, at the relevant time, was working with Pimpalner Police Station, Beed. The Petitioner's prayer is that the investigating agency has not made Respondent No.2 – Gajanan Bhatlavande (A.P.I.), as accused in the case. The Petitioner cwp708.10 3 alleges that Respondent No.2 – Gajanan had accepted Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) by way of bribe on 9th July, 2010 in connection with complaint filed by a person namely, Kalyan Pawar on 1st July, 2010. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the information given to police in respect of involvement of Respondent No.2 - Gajanan, is sufficient enough to make him an accused in the offence in connection with the F.I.R. registered on the complaint made by the Petitioner and the Anti-Corruption Department. 4. Considering the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Aleque Padamsee and others vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases, Page 171, in respect of exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court, we are of the view that the Petitioner has alternate efficacious remedy in this regard. The Petitioner cwp708.10 4 is entitled to pursue alternate remedies. In the facts of case, we are not inclined to exercise our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/APR11/cwp708.10