1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.672 OF 2006 Sharad Madanrao Patil ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. S.P. Brahme, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. S.D. Kaldate, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondents Nos.1 to 3. Shri. P.R. Patil holding for Shri. P.P. Chavan, Advocate for respondent No.4 -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & SHRIHARI P DAVARE,JJ. DATE: 1st SEPTEMBER 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) Learned counsel Shri. S.P. Brahme submits that respondents Nos.2 and 3 are guilty of dereliction of duty. The complaint was lodged based on audit report dated 6-6-2006 and in spite 2 of filing of the complaint based on some material, the police machinery for the reasons best known to them has not registered the same so far. 3) Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 Shri. P.R. Patil submits that the petitioner has alternate statutory remedies and at this stage the Court would not exercise extra ordinary writ jurisdiction directing the police to register the complaint. 4) In the facts of the case we find that the petitioner has alternate statutory remedy as described in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner could have exhausted these remedies before approaching this Court. The scope and ambit of such remedies is mentioned by the Apex Court in the judgment in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008)2 SCC 409. We are, therefore, of the view that in view of the view adopted by the Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu (supra) the petitioner may exhaust the alternate remedies. 3 5) Without entering into the merits of the case we dispose of the petition. 6) The Criminal Writ Petition stands disposed of. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ crwp.672.06