1 Criminal W.P.No. 900 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 900 OF 2010 Pundlik s/o Tulshiram Bagul ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Mah. & ors ..RESPONDENTS Mr K.G. Patil, A.P.P. for respondents no.1 to 3. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 24th January, 2011 PER COURT : None had appeared on behalf of the petitioner when this petition was called out and, therefore, it was kept back. None appears on behalf of the petitioner when this petition is called out again. This petition came to be adjourned at the request of petitioner on 19.7.2010, 2.8.2010 and 9.8.2010 and in that light of the matter, petition is dismissed for default. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) 2 Criminal W.P.No. 900 of 2011 2. Later on, Mr Vinod Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner appears and tenders apology for not remaining present when this petition was called out. We have accepted the apology and accordingly recall our order dismissing the petition for default and restore it to file. 3. This petition is heard for admission at the request of learned Counsel for the parties. 4. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not registered an offence against the accused though a report thereof has been filed by the petitioner. The petitioner also prays vide prayer clause (C) to the petition to direct the Chairman and managing committee members and office bearers of respondent no.4 society, to refund the amount to the petitioner, which was deposited by the petitioner in the savings account No.28/2 in respondent no.4 society. 5. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply the respondents have pointed out that the petitioner had approached the District Consumer Forum for redressal of his grievances. The grievance of the petitioner before the District Consumer Forum was that he had not received the amount through he had deposited the said amount in his account. Moreover, in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee vs. Union of India, (2007) 6 SCC 171, a 3 Criminal W.P.No. 900 of 2011 nature of the relief which is sought for by the petitioner, i.e. of issuing a writ for registration of the offence against offenders cannot be issued by this Court. The Supreme Court at paragraph 8 while deciding the said writ petition has held :- "(1) 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; (2) It is open to any person aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials to adopt the remedy in terms of the aforesaid provisions." A reference may usefully be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P., AIR 2008 Supreme Court 907. In the said judgment the Supreme Court has held that it would be open to the party who is aggrieved by the non-registration of the offence to adopt the remedies, available in law. 4 Criminal W.P.No. 900 of 2011 6. In the light of that, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in this writ petition and the writ petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed. The petitioner may, therefore, avail the remedies available to the petitioner in law. (A. V. POTDAR, J.) (P. V. HARDAS, J.) amj/criwp900.10