1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.197 OF 2010 Shyam Sunder Naraindas Mankani : Petitioner (Orig.Accused No.2) V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents ... WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.198 OF 2010 Sanjay Shyam Sunder Mankani : Petitioner (Orig.Accused no.4) V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents .... CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.199 OF 2010 Ajay Shyam Sunder Mankani : Petitioner (Orig.Accused no.3) V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents ... AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.200 OF 2010 Smt.Shakuntala Shyam Sunder Mankani : Petitioner (Orig.Accused No.1) V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents .... Mr.Ashok Mundargi, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Sunil Manohar, Mr.Akshay Patil, Mr.Faisal Sayyed, Mr.Vikrant Singh and Mr.Mayur Bhojwani i/b. M/s.Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co., for the petitioners. 2 Mr.S.A.Shaikh, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr.M.S.Mohite i/b.Mr. H.P.Vyas for respondent no.2. .... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : APRIL 26, 2010. P.C.: The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate’s 32nd Court at Bandra, Mumbai, dated 24.11.2009 thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioners for discharge. 2. This is the second round of litigation. On an earlier occasion, the petitioners had approached this Court by invoking the provisions of section 482 vide Criminal Writ Petition No.2163 of 2007. This Court, however, refused to entertain the petition on the ground that the petitioners had an alternate efficacious remedy of approaching the learned Magistrate. 3. It appears that in view of the liberty granted, the petitioners have approached the learned Magistrate for discharge and after dismissal of the said application have approached directly this Court. 3 4. Mr.Mohite, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2, raises a preliminary objection for entertaining the present petitions on the ground of the availability of an alternate efficacious remedy. 5. Mr.Mundargi, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, on the contrary, submitted that merely because the petitioners have an alternate remedy cannot be a ground for not- entertaining the present petitions in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 6. No doubt that non-exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court on the ground of availability of an alternate remedy is a rule of self-restraint. No doubt, in a given case, if this Court finds that continuing the criminal proceedings was an abuse of the process of law, this Court may, entertain the petitions directly under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. However, in the present case, a Judge of co-ordinate jurisdiction of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.2163 of 2007 has already refused to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction vide order dated 21.2.2008. The reason for not exercising the jurisdiction by the learned single Judge was availability of an alternate remedy to the petitioners. I 4 find that if this Court entertains the present Petitions when the petitioners already have an alternate remedy of approaching the learned revisional Court under section 397, it will be against judicial propriety. 8. In that view of the matter, the petitions are rejected by relegating the petitioners to the alternate remedy under section 397 of the Cr.P.C. Needless to state that if the Revision Applications are found to be beyond limitation, the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of set-off of the period during which they were bona fidely prosecuting the present petitions. 9. The interim protection which was granted to the petitioners shall continue for a period of four weeks from today. B. R. GAVAI, J.