1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1124 OF 2009 Sunil Yashwant Padekar & Anr. .... Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent Smt.Shubhada Khot a/w Smt.Sona Pardasani, for the petitioners. Smt.A.S.Pai, APP, for the State. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR, & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 25th FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C. 1. By invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed that appropriate writ directions may be issued directing the investigation of the matter by the DCB-CID Unit. The son of the petitioners met with an accident while he was driving his motorcycle on the highway. It is the case of the respondent-State that the son of the petitioners dashed with a pillar on the road, which resulted into fatal accident and death of the son of the petitioners. Initially, a case was registered as an accidental case. However, later on son of the petitioner died and abated summary report was filed before the Court. The grievance of the petitioners is that they were not informed in this behalf. According to the petitioners, their son 2 had died unnatural death. 2. It is required to be noted that petitioners had already made a complaint to the various police authorities and the Additional Superintendent of Police, had directed the police to conduct appropriate inquiry. After the inquiry it is found that it is a case of accident, as the statements of two witnesses have been recorded, who had taken the injured to the hospital on the relevant date. Affidavit in this behalf has also been filed in this proceedings. In para No.13 of the affidavit, it is pointed out that the son of the petitioners was taken to the hospital at Chakan by Raosaheb Vyavhare and Prakash Pansare. It is further stated in the affidavit that one Mr.Pappu Singhare and Raju Gavare had taken the injured to primary health centre i.e. Rural Hospital, Chakan and the statement of Pappu Singhare has been recorded during the course of inquiry. It is the apprehension on the part of the petitioners that their son might have been murdered by Shashikant Yelwande, who is a brother of the petitioner No.2. In the affidavit in reply, it is stated that car of Mr.Shashikant Yelwande was repaired and repainted on 20-11-2007 as the said car met with an accident on 13-11-2007. 3. It is pointed out to us that the alleged incident of the petitioner’s son having met with an accident took place on 05-04-2007 and therefore, damage to the car of said Shashikant Yelwande has no relevance 3 with the same. Learned APP also pointed out that one Mr.Raju Pansare registered C.R.No.255 of 2006 under Section 302, 201 r.w. 34 of IPC against the present petitioners as well as against the deceased, who died in an accident. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously submitted that in view of the above, various applications have been made by the petitioners in connection with the death of their son, whom they are suspecting. Learned APP submitted that the son of the petitioners died because of the accident occurred to his motorbike and he was not wearing helmet on the relevant date. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that once the investigation was carried out, the petitioners should have been informed about the same and in any case, appropriate summary should have been filed before the concerned Magistrate. Learned APP pointed out that as such a complaint was not registered and no FIR was registered, but in view of the allegations of the petitioners, an inquiry was conducted and it was found that there is no substance in the grievance of the petitioner. In our view, since alternate remedy is available with the petitioners by approaching the Magistrate in this behalf by filing a private complaint, as has been enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 409, this court would not like to investigate the entire matter, as according to the learned APP, it is a case of accidental death. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioners have not proof about the involvement of the concerned accused, but it is the apprehension of the petitioners that they must been instrumental in the death of their son, as the motorcycle dashed with the left side of the pillar as against that damage is caused to the right side. In our view, all these issues can be agitated before the concerned Magistrate by filing an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Copy of the investigation report is already given to the petitioners. Petitioners now are at liberty to approach concerned Magistrate to ventilate their grievance on all available points and if any such application is made, the Magistrate shall decide the same in accordance with law and after considering the material on record. 5. Subject to what has been stated above, the writ petition is disposed of. ( R.G.KETKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)