1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 492 of 2011 MAHAVIR HARIRAM AMGAONKAR VERSUS STATE OF MAH. THRU. SECY., HOME DEPTT., MUMBAI AND OTHERS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - None for the petitioner Mr. R. S. Nayak, A.P.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 07th DECEMBER, 2011. It appears that none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner when this matter was on board on 16.11.2011. None had appeared on behalf of the petitioner when this petition was on board on 23.11.2011. On 30.11.20011, this matter was adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner as a last chance. The parties were then informed that no further adjournment would be granted. Today, when the matter was called out after being kept back at the request of the learned counsel the petitioner, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The criminal writ petition is accordingly dismissed for default. LATER ON At 2.30, Mr. I. S. Charlewar, the learned counsel for the petitioner appears and tenders his apology for not remaining present when the petition was called out. We, accordingly, recall our order 2 dismissing the petition in default and restore the petition to file. The petition is heard for admission by consent of the parties. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioner prays for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent nos.1 to 3 to register an offence on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner. We have heard Mr. Charlewar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nayak, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent nos.1-3. At this juncture, it would be useful to refer to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee and others .vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2007(6) Supreme Court Cases 171 and Sakiri Vasu .vs. State of U.P. And others, reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 907, wherein the Supreme Court has held that such a petition seeking the relief is not available to the complainant. The complainant or the aggrieved person has an alternate remedy to it in law. In that light of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition. The petitioner may avail the alternate remedy available to the petitioner in law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale