- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.882/2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3970/2010 Syed Ishrat Tabassum d/o Noor Ali, age 28 yrs., occu.private service, r/o Altamas Colony, Central Naka, Aurangabad. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra, through Home Minister, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2] Commissioner of Police, Mill Corner, Aurangabad. 3] Police Inspector, Osmanpura Police Station, Aurangabad. 4] Shri Pandhrinath S. Bolker, Police Sub Inspector, Attached to Osmanpura Police Station, Aurangabad. 5] Shri Santosh Donar, Police Inspector, Osmanpura Police Station, Aurangabad. ...Respondents... ..... - 2 - Smt.Fatma Kazi, Advocate appointed for petitioner. Shri D.R. Kale, APP for respondent nos.1 to 3. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE: 01.10.2010 PER COURT : 1] Criminal Application No.3970/2010 has been filed by the petitioner praying therein that the documents annexed to this application may be considered while deciding the Criminal Writ Petition No.882/2010. 2] Criminal Writ Petition No.882/2010 has been filed by the petitioner praying therein for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent nos.1 & 2 to conduct an inquiry / investigation with regard to the incident dated 1.9.2010 at Osmanpura Police Station and the complaint dated 2.9.2010 tendered by the petitioner in the office of the Commissioner of Police and to be registered as F.I.R. and appropriate action be taken against the respondent nos.4 & 5. 3] According to the petitioner, the petitioner had sought to lodge a report, which was not accepted and, therefore, had tendered a complaint to the Commissioner of Police on 2.9.2010. The petitioner, therefore, prays that offence be registered on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner. - 3 - 4] At this juncture, it would be useful to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee V/s Union of India [ (2007) 6 SCC, 171 ]. The Supreme Court in this judgment has held in para 7 as under : “The correct position in 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 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.” The Supreme Court at para 8, while disposing of the aforesaid petition, issued directions, which we reproduce below: “[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.” 5] A reference may also be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu V/s State of U.P. (AIR 2008 Supreme Court, 907). The Supreme Court in the said judgment has held that an alternative remedy was available to the complainant in respect of non-registration of the FIR by the police. - 4 - 6] In the light of existence and availability of alternative and efficacious remedy to the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere in this petition and the petition is accordingly summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. Criminal Application No.3970/2010 is also disposed of in view of above order. (A.V. Potdar, J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/cr110102