1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.501 OF 2009 Smt.Najamabee Gulabsha Fakir .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Shri R.M.Deshmukh, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner Shri N.N.Jadhav, APP for respondents CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 18th JUNE, 2009 PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This is a petition submitted initially by the petitioner who appeared in person. Pursuant to the order of this Court Shri R.M.Deshmukh came to be appointed to represent the petitioner in this petition. The petitioner by this petition under 2 Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for a substantive relief vide prayer clause (C) of directing the respondents to register an offence in respect of the incidents which occurred on 20.4.2009, 21.4.2009 and 8.6.2009. The petitioner vide prayer clause (D) also prays that Police protection be granted to the petitioner and her family members. 3. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, the concerned Police Officer of Azadnagar Police Station, Dhule is present in the Court along with the record. On his instructions, the learned APP states that an offence in respect of incident which occurred on 8.6.2009 has been registered and all the accused have been arrested. In respect of the incidents dated 20.4.2009 and 21.4.2009, no FIR has been lodged at the police station. Even otherwise, in the light of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in “Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and Ors.”, 2007 (6) SCC 171 and “Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. And Ors.”, AIR 2008 SC 907, no writ can be issued directing the Police Officers to register an offence on the basis of the FIR. Suffice it to say that the petitioner has alternate and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner of filing private complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction. In so far as prayer clause (D) is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the 3 petitioner would submit an appropriate application to the Superintendent of Police, Dhule within one week from today. We direct the Superintendent of Police, Dhule to decide the said application, if submitted by the petitioner seeking Police protection within two weeks of its submission, accordance with law. 4. In the light of the aforesaid facts, therefore, we find that no further interference is called for in this petition. Rule issued stands discharged in so far as prayer clause (C) is concerned with directions tot he Superintendent of Police, Dhule in respect of prayer clause (D). 5. Thus, Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. We quantify the fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed for the petitioner at Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five thousand). ( R.K. DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/501.09criwp) 4