1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 91 OF 2010 Gulya s/o Narshi Valvi ...Petitioner VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents ..... Shri P.B.Patil, advocate for the petitioner Shri S.D.Kaldate, APP for the respondents ..... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 5th February, 2010. ORAL ORDER 1 This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to register an offence against respondent no.5 on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner dated 16.1.2010. 2 The petitioner is a Project Officer of Integrated Tribal Development Project, Yawal. on 16.1.2010, respondent no. 5 had 2 addressed a meeting of the District Planning and Development Committee, Jalgaon and in the said meeting respondent no. 5, in order to humiliate, called and referred the petitioner in a humiliating manner. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the utterances of respondent no. 5 immediately lodged a complaint on 16.1.2010 and as no offence has been registered against respondent no. 5, the petitioner has filed the present petition. Learned A.P.P. on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 states on instructions that on receipt of the complaint of the petitioner, it was inquired into and no offence was disclosed, and therefore, the offence has not been registered against respondent no. 5. 3 Mr. P.B.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohindro vs State of Punjab & ors., 2001 (Supp. 2) Bom.C.R. 510, in which the Supreme Court has held that there could not be any inquiry without registering criminal case and in the peculiar facts of that case the Supreme Court directed the police to register an offence on the basis of the report lodged at the police station. 4 A reference in this behalf may usefully be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee and ors. Vs Union of India and ors., (2007) 6 SCC 171, in which the Supreme 3 Court has held that, “The correct position of law, therefore, is that the police officials ought to register the FIR whenever facts brought to their notice show that cognizable offence has been made out. In case of 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.” 5 A reference may also be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu vs State of U.P. & ors., AIR 2008 SC 907, in which the Supreme Court has also held that on failure of the police to register an offence, the aggrieved person can resort to the alternate remedies in law. 6 In the light of the afore said judgments, we are not inclined to entertain this petition and consequently dismiss the petition relegating the petitioner to avail alternate remedies available in law. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) dbm/crwp91.10