1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.947 OF 2010 Vasantrao s/o Rambhau Patil .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors. .. Respondents Mr.Vinod Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr.K.S.Patil, A.P.P. for respondent-State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 23rd November 2010 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus against the respondent No.5 for registration of offence against respondents 10 to 33 on the basis of the complaint submitted by the petitioner on 9.10.2010. In the said complaint the petitioner has alleged that the Board of Directors of the sugar factory have committed misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 8,26,69,177/-. Mr Vinod Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated before us that on the basis of the first information report lodged by the Auditor, an offence of misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 67 lacs has been registered against the accused named in the first information report. 2 2. In any event, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee Vs. Union of India, (2007) 6 SCC 171, the relief which the petitioner has prayed for in this petition cannot be granted to the petitioner. The Supreme Court in this judgment held at paragraph 7 that, “ 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 paragraph 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.” A reference may also be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P., AIR 2008 Supreme Court 907. The Supreme Court in the said judgment has held that an alternate remedy was available to the complainant in respect of non registration of the FIR by the Police. 3 3. In the light of the aforesaid judgments we are not inclined to allow this petition and consequently this petition fails and is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/947.10criwp)