1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1474 OF 2008 Suman Sambhaji Shinde & ors .......Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & ors........ Respondants. Mr. M. V. Holamagi for the Petitioners Mrs. Usha Kejariwal APP for the State. CORAM: S. B. MHASE & R. V. MORE, JJ. DATED: 14th OCTOBER, 2008. P.C.: Heard. 1. The petitioner initially approached this court by filing W.P. No. 563/07 making grievance that the offence is not being registered on the basis of the compliant which is lodged by the petitioner. However when this petition came before this court, a statement was made by the learned APP that the offence under sections 324, 326, 504 and 506 read with 34 IPC has been registered. The crime has been investigated and the charge sheet has been filed being C.C. No. 82/07. It is also reported to this court that on the basis of the complaint, which is lodged by the petitioner, a chapter proceeding has been initiated against the respondent. It appears that the petitioner then tried to make a greivance that the charge sheet filed is not proper and he wanted 2 alteration of the charge. While disposing of that petition, the court has observed that the petitioner should take appropriate steps for alteration of the charge and therefore the petitioner has filed the present petition for alteration of the charge. Basically when the police papers are submitted before the Magistrate, the Magistrate is supposed to take cognizance under section 190 of Cr.P.C. and that is the court which should be requested to alter the charge by making appropriate application. Instead of making such application before the Magistrate, before whom the proceeding is pending, the present writ petition has been filed. We therefore refrain to entertain this petition so far as the alteration of the charges is concerned as the cognisance thereof can be taken by the Magistrate. 2. Another prayer is the externment of the persons against whom the petitioner is making grievance. The extenment proceeding is required to be conducted under the Bombay Police Act by a competent authority and directly an action of externment is not permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore both the reliefs, which are claimed are misconceived and we are refrained to entertain this petition. Petition is therefore disposed of. S. B. MHASE, J. R. V. MORE, J. 3