1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal W.P.No. 253/2011 Shri Kishore s/o Ganeshlal Jaiswal and another vs. State of Maharashtra, Ministryof Home Affairs, through its Principal Secretary, Mumbai and others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mr. A.T.Purohit, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.B.Yangal, APP for respondents. CORAM : MRS. V.K.TAHILRAMANI & M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ DATE : 18.04.2011 The case of the petitioners is that they tried to lodge an FIR against respondent no.4, however, the police authorities did not register the F.I.R.. Hence, they have prayed that the police authority be directed to lodge F.I.R. and investigate the matter. The petitioners are brothers. Respondent no.4 is their elder brother. The petitioners and respondent no.4 jointly own a country liquor shop. Originally the country liquor licence stood in the name of their father. It is the case of the petitioners that after the death of their father, respondent no.4 by misrepresenting facts, got his sole name entered in the country liquor licence. 2` Thereafter, a compromise was arrived at between all of them and all of them entered into a partnership deed and the shop was being run by petitioner no.1 on behalf of all and respondent no.4 was being given his share of profits. It is further, the case of the petitioners that on 1.4.2011, respondent no.4 came to the liquor shop with some gundas and abused petitioner no.1, gave threats to his life, thereafter, respondent no.4 snatched the keys of the shop and drove away. They approached the Police Station with an FIR under sections 341, 120B and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code but as the FIR was not registered, they have approached this Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Aleque Padamsee and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors., reported in (2007) 6 SCC 171, has held that if information is given to the police regarding commission of cognizable offence and no action is taken by the police then proper remedy is to file a complaint before the concerned Magistrate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that in such a case a writ petition is not to be entertained as there is a remedy available of filing a complaint before the Magistrate. The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition with the following direction. “If any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read 3` with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed.” In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, it is obvious that the remedy open to the petitioner is to file a complaint before the concerned Magistrate. We have already observed that it is open to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE patle