1 cri-wp-2816-10.doc pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2816 OF 2010 Shiv Pujan Pachu Kumbhar and ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents Mr. Rajesh Sharma a/w Mr. Sunil Jadhav i/by M/s. Rajesh Sharma and Associates for petitioners. Ms. M. H. Mhatre,APP for State. Mr. Jayant Bardeshkar for respondent no.3. Mr. Shaunak Mehta for respondent no.4. Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Prakash Naik for respondent nos.5 to 7. Mr. M. K. Kocharekar for respondent nos.8 and 9. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. July 25, 2011. P.C. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and we have perused the affidavit-in-reply filed by the IO. In our opinion, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners will be before the trial court where the charge-sheets have already been filed in the cross complaints. 2 cri-wp-2816-10.doc So far as the allegations against the police officers are concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners read out the averments in para 15 of the petition memo. The petitioner no.1 was admittedly produced for remand on 13/6/2010 itself on his arrest and we called upon the learned counsel for the petitioners to furnish a copy of any application he had submitted before the Remand Court about the ill-treatment meted out to petitioner no.1 by the police officers and the reply was that no such application had been filed. Petitioner No.1 had the earliest opportunity to raise the grievance about the ill-treatment given to him by the police officers when he was produced for remand before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and he has not done so. The police officers in their affidavits individually filed have denied these allegations. In a writ petition we cannot consider the allegations made for the first time in such a case and, therefore, this petition must fail. The petition is dismissed with liberty as is available in law. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)