( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 760 OF 2009 Shri Pundalik s/o Devram Varke PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ..... Mr. B.R. Kedar, advocate for the petitioner. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 1st September, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is original complainant who filed a private complaint case bearing R.C.C. No. 124/2008 against as many as 19 accused persons who are the Directors and employees of the Cooperative Society and the officers of the Cooperative Department. The ( 2 ) learned Judicial Magistrate directed registration of the FIR vide section 156 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and to carry out the investigation. The police chargesheeted some of the accused persons whereas dropped names of some of them as a result of investigation. Thereafter, the petitioner gave an application (Exh-8) for direction to record statements under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code and to issue process against the remaining accused who have not been joined. The learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the application. 3. The impugned order is of discretionary nature. Alternate remedy is available by way of revision. The Apex Court in “Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others” (2008) 2 SCC 409, held that the High Court should discourage such kind of writ petition. In paragraph No. 28, it is observed : “It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is ( 3 ) equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere.” Considering the above legal position, the petition is dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIWP760-09