1 8.wp.168-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.168 OF 2011 Shivkumar Narsayya Renkuntla. ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents. .......... Mr.Satish Mishra, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.A.S. Gadkari, A.P.P. for the State. .......... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 17th FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The controversy appears to be a private dispute pertaining to property which the Petitioner claims as it belongs to him and was let out to Respondent No.2, who in turn has refused to vacate the same and in stead is threatening the Petitioner. In our opinion, the Petitioner can take recourse to alternative efficacious remedy by way of private criminal complaint, if so advised. We dispose of PPD 2 8.wp.168-11 this Petition with liberty to the Petitioner to pursue his remedy before the Criminal Court. All questions are left open. 3. During the Course of the argument, our attention was invited to Exhibit-F. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that this document is a forged and fabricated document. However, no such complaint has been made in writing to the local Police so far. The Petitioner, if so advised, is free to approach the local Police Station in connection with the said grievance and if the statement of the Petitioner discloses cognizable offence, we have no manner of doubt that the concerned Police Officer would proceed to register the FIR and take the matter to its logical end. 4. Petition is disposed of accordingly. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)