1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITON NO. 753 OF 2008 DIST.: PUNE Seema Prabhudev Hiremath & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Suhas Oak for the Petitioners Mr. A.S. Gadkari, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the Respondents. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and A.A. KUMBHAKONI,JJ. DATE: JULY 9, 2008 P. C.:- The allegation of the petitioners is that they had filed a complaint before the police, which, according to them, disclosed a cognizable offence, and this complaint had been filed by them on 12th May, 2007, but police have not so far taken any action. 2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has drawn our attention to two judgments of the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State 2 of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 409, and Aleque Padamsee & Ors., v. Union of India & Ors., (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 171. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohindro v. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 581. 3. We are of the view that it cannot be said that a Writ Petition of the present nature cannot be filed in the Court, and the Court cannot grant a mandamus in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution. We feel that the proper course for the petitioners is to approach the Magistrate, who has the powers to grant the relief similar to the relief sought from this Court. 4. With this observation, we dismiss the Writ Petition, giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Magistrate. BILAL NAZKI, J. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.