1 cri-wp-71-11 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 71 OF 2011 Mustafa Ahmed Dossa ..Petitioner Vs. The Inspector of Police and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr. Rizwan G. Merchant Advocate for Petitioner Mr. D.P.Adsule A.P.P. for the State .... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : MARCH 09, 2011 PER COURT: 1 This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays vide prayer clause (a) in the petition for issuance of proper directions to the respondents for registering an offence punishable under Sections 211, 307, 323, 327, 387, 506(II) read with Section 120 of The IPC on the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner dated 27.7.2010. 2 cri-wp-71-11 2 It appears that a communication had been received from the petitioner through jail and accordingly the petitioner was permitted to withdraw that communication which had been registered as Criminal Writ Petition and was granted liberty to file a fresh petition. Accordingly pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 11.10.2010 present petition has been filed. 3 On notice being issued to the respondents, respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. A basic contention in the affidavit in reply on behalf of the respondents is that upon verification of the complaint i.e. after conducting preliminary inquiry, according to the respondents, no cognizable offence was disclosed and accordingly no offence has been registered. We may incidentally state that on the basis of the complaint lodged by the accused i.e. it is alleged to have caused injuries to the present petitioner and offence punishable under Sections 307, 324, 504, 323, 506(II) read with Section 34 of The IPC vide Crime No. 215 of 2010 has been registered against the present petitioner. It transpires from the perusal of the affidavit that the investigation in respect of the said crime has been complete and the charge sheet has been filed. 4 We have heard the learned Counsel in support of the various 3 cri-wp-71-11 grounds urged in the petition. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner we have also perused the complaint which has been addressed by the present petitioner seeking to make out a case of assault against the offender stated in the complaint. We have also perused the various other documents including the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since upon perusal of the complaint filed by the present petitioner a prima facie cognizable offence has been disclosed, the respondents ought to have registered the offence against the offender viz. the complainant. The respondents having not done so, would be a fact again to issue necessary directions in respect of the registration of the said crime. 5 A reference at this juncture usefully be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in `Aleque Padamsee Vs. Union of India' 2007 (6) S.C.C. 171. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment at paragraph 8 has concluded that police are under an obligation to register an offence if a cognizable offence is disclosed. The Supreme Court then stated that in the event the police do not register an offence, the person aggrieved, has an alternate remedy of filing a private complaint. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the matter of `Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others' AIR 2008 SC 907. In the light of the 4 cri-wp-71-11 aforesaid facts and in the light of the fact that petitioner has an alternate remedy available in law this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. [N.D.DESHPANDE, J.] [ P.V.HARDAS, J. ]