1 13-WP-2058-2016.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2058 OF 2016 Harsh Shailesh Ganatra … Petitioner Versus Rohit Thacker & Ors. … Respondents ******  Mr. Abhijeet Jadhav on behalf of advocate Shinde & Co., for the petitioner.  Ms. Sangita Phad, APP, for the respondent-State. ****** CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 4th NOVEMBER 2025 P.C. : . This application has been pending in this Court for the past more than 9 years. The record shows that it was not circulated for effective hearing even once in the past 9 years. 2. Today when the petition is called out for hearing, it is submitted that the arguing counsel would assist this Court. 3. But, we find substance in the contention of the learned APP that the prayers made in this petition are clearly not maintainable and that therefore, this Court may not entertain this petition. Kartikeya,P.A. 2 13-WP-2058-2016.doc 4. The prayer clauses of this petition read as follows : “A. Rule may kindly be issued. B. Call for record and proceeding of the case. C. By issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, petitioner is seeking directions to the Respondents that, they do not harass the Petitioner and restrain the respondents from entering petitioners house. D. Your lordship in the interest of justice fairness and equality before law may be pleased to direct the Sr. Police Inspector of Police Mulund Police Station u/s. 156 (3) of Cr. P.C. to issue report in this matter. E. Any other relief to which the Petitioner are found entitle to in law and in the ends of justice may kindly be granted.” 5. Insofar prayer clause (C) is concerned, we are of the opinion that such a direction cannot be sought in a criminal writ petition filed before this Court. It is evident that such relief could be obtained by the petitioner by instituting appropriate proceedings before the competent Civil Court. 6. As regards prayer clause (D) we find that if the grievance of the petitioner is that the police failed to take appropriate action and to register FIR, an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. could have been moved before the jurisdictional Magistrate. This Court cannot entertain a writ petition on that count, particularly when there is nothing to show that the petitioner approached the jurisdictional Magistrate by invoking Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Kartikeya,P.A. 3 13-WP-2058-2016.doc 7. In view of the above, we find that the writ petition cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) Kartikeya,P.A.