1 cri-wp-1298-1300-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1298 OF 2010 Smt. Kamal Khairatilal Bajaj and ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Shri Ramesh Shorilal Khurana .. Respondent WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1300 OF 2010 Smt. Kamal Khairatilal Bajaj and ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Rajarani Gurusaranlal Bajaj and ors. .. Respondents Mr. Uday Warunjikar i/by Mr. Nitesh Bhutekar for petitioners in both the petitions. Mr. S.S. Patwardhan for respondent no.1. In Cri.WP NO. 1298/10. Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for State in Cri.WP No. 1298/10. Mr. Subhash Jadhav i/by ALMT Legal for respondent nos.1 to 3 and 5 and 6 in Cri.WP No. 1300/10. Mr. V.T. Tulpule, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.M. Khadapkar for respondent nos.7, 8 and 10 in Cri.WP No. 1300/10. Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for State in Cri.WP No. 1300/10. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. JULY 28, 2010. P.C. In both these petitions a common prayer is to direct the police 2 cri-wp-1298-1300-10 to register an FIR. It has been seen from the record that private complaints were filed by the son of the petitioner no.1 – Smt. Kamal Bajaj and process was issued. The said order of issuance of process was challenged in a criminal revision application which also came to be dismissed. In view of the law laid down in the case of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. And ors. [(2008) 2 SCC 409], the appropriate remedy for the petitioners may be either to move a private complaint, if so permissible or to challenge the order passed by the Sessions Court dismissing the criminal revision application. Hence, the petitions are disposed as withdrawn with liberty as is available in law. (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)