1 cr.w.p.2058-10 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2058 OF 2010 Sangeeta Gawa alias Anjali Kulkarni ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. J.A. Udaipuri i/b. Mr. V.S. Bhorge for the petitioner. Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 13th August, 2010. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Udaipuri, the learned Counsel for the petitioner as the petitioner is in the third round before us. 2. In the first round the petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No.391 of 2006 and the grievances raised were that she had been harassed and falsely implicated by the present respondent No.2 Shri Bhausaheb Balasaheb Gaikar, Assisstant Police Inspector from Marol Police Station and her family members including her brother were falsely implicated. 2 cr.w.p.2058-10 She, therefore, prayed for directions to conduct an enquiry against the said Officer by the Department for the various acts of cruelty and abuses of power including the act of forcing the petitioner to accept illegal demands made by him. This Court noted that the petitioner was arrested in several cases and in 5 cases charge sheet was already filed against her and, therefore, prima facie there was material to hold that she was indulging in an offence of misappropriation and cheating in relation to trade and practice as adopted by her in her business. The statement of the Department was also noted that the officer was to be proceeded departmentally by issuing him charge sheet. This Court noted down the said statement and held that nothing further survived in the petition. However, while disposing off the petition this Court also noted that in regard to the allegations made against the Police Officer of illegal demands made, the petitioner was granted liberty to seek alternative remedy available to her in law. 3. The petitioner came before this Court in the second round in Criminal Writ Petition No.2008 of 2009 and again reiterated the case of demanding and accepting bribe by respondent No.2 and the State ought to 3 cr.w.p.2058-10 have prosecuted him for the said offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This Court perused the departmental enquiry papers and also noted that the disciplinary authority had awarded punishment of stoppage of one increment for a period of one year and he had preferred an appeal against the said order which was rejected. 4. In the third round, this petition prays for directing respondent No.1 to take cognizance of the complaint dated 15th February, 2006 and register an F.I.R. against respondent No.2. It also prays for quashing and setting aside the order of punishment dated 31st January, 2008 regarding stoppage of one increment for one year and for suspension of respondent No.2 in the interest of justice and equity. 5. Admittedly the earlier two orders passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.391 of 2006 and Criminal Writ Petition No.2008 of 2009 have reached their finality and the only remedy available to the petitioner is to move a complaint on the demand of illegal gratification by following the appropriate course available in law. The prayers made in this petition have already been dealt with in the earlier orders passed by this Court on 16th August, 2006 and 17th December, 2009 in the respective Writ Petitions. 4 cr.w.p.2058-10 Hence, we do not find any reason to show our indulgence for the third time under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petition is rejected. (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)