1 Criminal W.P.No.476 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 476 OF 2011 Vijaysing s/o Nathesing Rajput ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Mah. & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr S.I. Nandode, Advocate holding for Mr B.R. Warma, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr S.D. Kaldate, A.P.P. for the respondents. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 27th June, 2011 PER COURT : This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to register an offence against the accused named therein and to prosecute them. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing that action be taken against the concerned officers of the Supply Department, who had issued yellow ration cards without making verification against the persons who are named in the complaint. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents no.2 & 3 to take penal action against the concerned officers 2 Criminal W.P.No.476 of 2011 of the Supply Department, who have failed to initiate the prosecution on the basis of the complaint dated 28.2.2011. Prayer clause (C) is dependent on the relief which the petitioner has prayed at prayer clause (A). 2. A reference at this juncture may usefully be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee vs. Union of India, (2007) 6 SCC 171, wherein the Supreme Court at paragraph 7 has held that "the correct position in law, therefore, is that the police officials ought to register the FIR whenever facts brought to their notice show that cognizable offence has been made out. In case the police officials fail to do so, the modalities to be adopted are as set out in section 190 read with section 200 of the Code." The Supreme Court at paragraph 8 has held :- "(1) If any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in section 190 read with section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed; (2) It is open to any person aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials to adopt the remedy in terms of the aforesaid provisions." 3. A reference may also be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P., AIR 2008 Supreme Court 907, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the aggrieved complainant has 3 Criminal W.P.No.476 of 2011 an alternate remedy available under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that light of the matter, the petitioner has remedies available in law, which the petitioner may avail of. 4. We, thus, see no merit in the petition and the petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criwp476.11