1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2910/2009 Ramesh L.Mohadikar and Ors. Petitioners Vs. The Commissioner of Police & Ors. Respondents Mr.Pankaj Das for the petitioners Ms.Kejriwal ,APP for State M/s Bharat Vaishnawa with Mr.A.B.Dubey for Res.4 Ms.Manpreet Kaur Salooja for Res.5 CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI, & SMT.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE : 24th FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C. . We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners , respondent 5 and learned A.P.P.. 2] The entire dispute centers around Flat no.101 , first floor,Sagarika Residency, Plot no. 413/414 ,Sector 36, Nerul, Navi Mumbai .Both, the petitioners and respondent 4 are laying their claim on the said flat. Respondent 5 claims to have purchased the said flat from the petitioners and claims to have sold it to 2 respondent 4. In respect of this flat a civil suit was filed by the petitioners in the Court of Civil Judge,J.D.Belapur being Regular Civil Suit no. 32/2009 for a declaration that they are the owners of the suit flat and for injunction restraining respondents 4 and 5 from disturbing their possession. Admittedly interim application for injunction filed by the petitioners came to be rejected on 3/3/2009. Thereafter on 4/5/2009 the petitioners withdrew the said suit , however, no leave was granted to the petitioners to file fresh suit. The petitioners challenged that order in this Court . By order dated 21/1/2010 the petition was disposed of. Learned Single Judge while disposing of the petition has observed that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order ,however, dismissal of the petition shall not come in the way of the petitioners to move properly framed application for amendment. Trial Court was directed to consider it on merits without being influenced by the said order. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to tell us exactly what steps the petitioners have taken after learned Single 3 Judge disposed of the said writ petition. 3] Thus, it is clear that civil dispute was sought to be raised by the petitioners . We are informed that the petitioners propose to amend the suit . Needless to say that Civil Court will decide the complicated questions of title,if the suit is revived. 4] In this petition the petitioners have made serious allegations against police officers. It appears that respondent 4 had filed a complaint interalia making allegations that the petitioners had threatened her and entered the said flat. In respect of the said complaint investigation was carried out and chargesheet has already been filed on 30/9/2009 being Criminal Case no. 1032/2009 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vashi. The present petition is filed on 10/10/2009 . Firstly if the petitioners had any grievance about the conduct of the police they should not have waited for the chargesheet to be filed. A complaint ought to have been filed immediately. Learned counsel for the 4 petitioners states that the complaint could not be filed because the petitioners were being threatened. It is difficult to accept this explanation. Many remedies were open to the petitioners. Nothing has been done by the petitioners except addressing one application dated 27/5/2009 to the Commissioner ,New Mumbai. If the Commissioner had not responded to the complaint, the petitioners could have filed a private complaint. The petitioners could have also approached this Court. As stated earlier chargesheet has already been filed. Appropriate course for the petitioners would be to voice their grievance ,if any, before the Trial Court , if they so desire. They can also get the issues regarding title decided by the Civil Court. No case is made out for entertaining the petition. Petition is dismissed . (Smt.Ranjana Desai,J.) (Smt.Mridula Bhatkar,J.) 5