1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICMTURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Writ Petition No. 33 of 2008 Keshav and ors v. Commissioner and ors ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr S.M. Pande, Adv for petitioners. Mr S.J. Jichkar, APP for respondent no.1. Ms T. Udeshi, Adv for respondent no.6. Coram : D.D. Sinha and A.P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 16th October 2008 1. Heard Mr S.M. Pande, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr S.J. Jichkar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1. 2. The following facts are not disputed : (1). Offences under Sections 498A, 307 and 506-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were registered against the petitioners. (2). Investigation has been completed and the charge- sheet is also filed in the competent Criminal Court. 2 3. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that in such situation the present criminal writ petition is not maintainable, however, it is open for the petitioners to move Criminal Court for discharge if the petitioners so desire. Similar objection has been raised by the learned counsel for respondent no.6. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that criminal writ petition is very much maintainable in law and this Court can always take cognizance of the issue raised in the writ petition. Merely because the petitioners have alternate efficacious remedy, that by itself, does not render criminal writ petition not maintainable in law. It is submitted that alternate efficacious remedy by itself does not come in the way of exercise of extraordinary powers vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the objection raised by the respondents is bad in law. In order to substantiate the contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Happy Home Estates v. State of Maharashtra & ors reported in 2008 (3) Mh.L.J. 182 and decision of the Apex Court in S.M. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar and ors reported in 1970 Cri.L.J. 764. 5. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective parties. It is well settled that though the alternate remedy by itself does not take away extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 3 however, when the alternate remedy which is efficacious and equally effective is available in law, then this court should be extremely slow in exercising extraordinary jurisdiction vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So far as the decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court in the said decisions also demonstrates that normally when there is statutory alternate efficacious remedy available, the aggrieved person should exhaust the same and this Court should be slow in exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, though the criminal writ petition is maintainable, however, in view of the alternate statutory remedy available in law, we are not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is always open for the petitioners to invoke the alternate statutory remedy available in law for redressal of their grievances. Judge. Judge. hsjoshi