1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PEITTION NO.900 OF 2009 Ravindra s/o Narayanrao Mhaske .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri Manoj Shelke, Advocate holding for Shri Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner Shri K.G.Patil, APP for respondents 1 to 3 Shri S.S.Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent No.4 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ. DATE : 12th November 2009 PER COURT 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to initiate criminal action against respondent No.4 for having caused the death of wife of the petitioner. 2. It appears that a report came to be lodged with the concerned police station by the petitioner complaining therein of negligence in the surgery performed by respondent No.4 on the wife of the present petitioner. The petitioner alleged that on account of the gross negligence done by respondent No.4, the wife of the petitioner died. The petitioner by this petition, therefore, seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the registration of the offence against respondent No.4. 2 3. Our attention has been invited to the judgment of Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee and others vs. Union of India, 2007 (6) SC (Supp) 684. The Supreme Court at paragraph 7 has held as under : “ The correct position in law, therefore, is that the police officials ought to register the FIR whenever facts brought to its notice show that cognizable offence has been made out. In case the police officials fail to do so, the modalities to be adopted are as set out in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code.” Paragraph 8 of the judgment, the Supreme Court included by saying that “ if any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed.” 4. In another judgment of the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT, 907, Supreme Court has held that a petition against the non-registration of FIR by the police is not to be entertained. An aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3), Cr.P.C. by an application in writing or can file application before the Magistrate under Section 156(3). 5. In the light of the aforesaid judgments and in the light of the fact that the petitioner has an alternate remedy available to him, there is no 3 merit in the petition and the petition, therefore, is summarily dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/900.09criwp)