-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 290 OF 2008 ( Smt. Geetabai Bhagirath Bood vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri V. R. Mundra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri D.M. Kale, APP for the respondents. ..... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE & B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, JJ. JUNE 24, 2008. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is the sister of one Durgadas Sarda, who was allegedly assaulted by Respondents No. 2 & 3 on 3.8.2005. In connection with the said assault, Respondents No. 2 & 3 were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 307, 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner, since beginning the Investigating Officer did not conduct investigation properly and tried to help Respondents No. 2 & 3. The same was the case with the Public Prosecutor, who conducted the Sessions trial. Ultimately, the Sessions trial was decided on 23.2.2007 and Respondents No. 2 & 3 came to be convicted for the -2- offence punishable under Sections 308, 324, 452 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. They were not convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code which is a serious offence as compared to Section 308. The petition itself shows that Respondents No. 2 & 3 have preferred Criminal Appeal challenging their sentence and fine imposed and that the said appeal is pending before this Court. 3. If that is so, it is obvious that the petitioner could have challenged the acquittal of Respondent Nos.2 & 3 under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code by preferring Revision. Thus, there is an effective alternate remedy available to the petitioner which she has not exhausted. 4. In view of these circumstances, we are not inclined to exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. Criminal Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 5. It is needless to say that the petitioner is at liberty to prefer Revision against the acquittal of Respondents No. 2 & 3 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. JUDGE JUDGE *GS