JUDGMENT - P.C.:---Rule. By consent rule heard forthwith. 2.Mr. R.M. Tipnis being petitioner, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against State of Maharashtra, and Metropolitan Magistrate, 21st Bandra Court, Mumbai, for the reliefs of : To call the records and proceedings of Case No. 105/MISC of 98 in 21st Bandra Court of Metropolitan Magistrate and the record of Santacruz Police Station and direction being granted to the police to register and investigate the offence as well as writ of Mandamus directing the learned Magistrate to respect the Rule in the Criminal Manual and the High Court circular as to age be respected and complied with. 3.The writ petitioner on the specific overt acts of certain programme arranged to be performed by way of Musical performance at the Centaur Hotel, Juhu by Mr. Gulam Ali, a Gazal Master from Pakistan visited Bombay, which was a private function when drinks and dinner was sponsored by one Navin Rohtagi of Saphire Entertainment Ltd. by inviting above 700 high Society persons at Centaur Hotel, Juhu, Bombay. 4.According to him, Shiv Sena, a political organisation, most predominant in Mumbai had upon advance intimation of the said programme had conspired to disrupt the concert in retaliation of the killings of Hindus in Kashmir valley and a well designed plan was hatched as was evident from the crowd and strength of Shiv Sainiks that participated in the attack and that the said large scale attack was to be planned, in the context of the police having jurisdiction had not taken any steps or cognizance of. It was the case of the writ petitioner being the citizen interested always in the public lives moved the concerned police but they never entertained any complaint from him and that in order to avoid any breach of peace and loss of lives and property, the writ petitioner filed complaint under section 200 of Cr. P.C. first to the Magistrate Court at Andheri and that he withdrew it from the said Court for one reason or other and then he resubmitted the said complaint to the Metropolitan Magistrate, 21st Court, Bandra, Mumbai, under Lodging No. 105/Misc. of 1998 on 4th May, 1998. The learned Magistrate has kept the said complaint for verification on 12-5-1998. This order was passed on 4th May, 1998, itself. 5.However, there was endorsement made by Mr. of 1998 on 4th May, 1998. The learned Magistrate has kept the said complaint for verification on 12-5-1998. This order was passed on 4th May, 1998, itself. 5.However, there was endorsement made by Mr. Tipnis, the writ petitioner himself, which is as follows : "As the Hon'ble Court declines to have the matter taken up for recording examination under section 200 Cr.P.C. and since the matter is volatile involving riot in Bombay I beg to withdraw the complaint so as to file in the Hon'ble High Court under section sic Article 227 Constitution. This is inspite of my pointing out the High Court Circular." 6.Upon the above endorsement made by the writ petitioner himself, the learned 21st Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri, Bombay on 4th May, 1998 itself has passed the following order: "It is incorrect that I have declined to examine complainant under section 200 of Cr. P. Code, after taking cognizance of the complaint. The matter is fixed for recording verification on 12-5-1998. Order to that effect is passed on the first page of the complaint. However, complainant is insisting that it should be taken up in any case, before 8-5-1998, when his request was not acceded to because of the position of my board, he submitted that he wants to withdraw the complaint. As far as the circular pointed out by him, it is to be mentioned that the given date i.e. 12-5-98 is the earliest possible date, considering the position of the board and four holidays i.e. 7, 9, 10 and 11 May intervening. In view of this, complaint is allowed to be withdrawn." 7.We have heard Mr. R.M. Tipnis who appeared in person and argued his case per contra. Mr. R.L. Patil, learned Additional Public Prosecutor very much reiterated his contentions on the basis of the reply filed by him in this writ petition. In so far as Musical concert programme by Gulam Ali a Pakistan National during the month of April, 1998, is concerned, the charges in writ petition are not in any controversy. However, Mr. R.L. Patil placed reliance upon the written affidavit has emphasis that such programme has been cancelled and that there was no complaint which depicts any commission of any offence reported to any of the police station in Mumbai Metropolis. However, Mr. R.L. Patil placed reliance upon the written affidavit has emphasis that such programme has been cancelled and that there was no complaint which depicts any commission of any offence reported to any of the police station in Mumbai Metropolis. It was also his case that neither of the Organizers nor the owners of the place where the programme other than sic Musicial concert was performed, has complained to any police. Therefore, almost all the contentions raised in the writ petition has been denied by and on behalf of the respondents. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would say that if any complaint is given to the police that would be definitely taken care of by entertaining the proceedings in accordance with law. But in the instant case, according to him no complaint has been lodged. 8.On the contrary, Mr. Tipnis as writ petitioner has argued that he had approached the concerned police station for the purpose of complaining but he was never allowed nor entertained any complaint and that caused him to approach the Court at the first instance in Andheri and after withdrawal therefrom he filed it before Metropolitan Magistrate, 21st Court, Bandra. The writ petitioner has not disputed the fact that he withdrew his private complaint and made endorsement and that he has not canvassed during the course of argument about the order passed by the learned Magistrate though he is challenging the very impugned order in the writ petition. 9.In the above context, we have carefully looked into the complaint and the date of filing the same into the Court and the very endorsement made by the writ petitioner himself and consequent order passed by the learned Magistrate. It is noticed that before recording the sworn statement of the writ petitioner, he has withdrawn his complaint for the reasons endorsed in the petition itself on 4th May, 1998 and that in only appreciation thereof, the learned Magistrate has passed the order impugned in this writ petition. Thus it is seen that the petitioner after having withdrawn his complaint even before it was taken to the file and recording his sworn statement, that would mean before taking cognizance of the complaint. He has expressed his desire to withdraw and accordingly he was allowed to withdraw. Thus it is seen that the petitioner after having withdrawn his complaint even before it was taken to the file and recording his sworn statement, that would mean before taking cognizance of the complaint. He has expressed his desire to withdraw and accordingly he was allowed to withdraw. Therefore, in the circumstances, we do not find any lapse or laxity or impropriety or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate on 4th May, 1998. 10.Once the remedy provided by the provisions of statute to the citizen is always available and that remedy was attempted to be sought from the Court of law and by withdrawing it in the middle abruptly for the obvious reasons known to the said person approaching the High Court seeking to exercise writ jurisdiction for the same remedy under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in our respectful and esteemed view is not permissible and cannot at all be countenanced. This would mean that the petitioner is always entitled to have this remedy vindicated either before the police if refused by addressing a letter by registered post or to approach the Higher Authorities or as contemplated by section 200 Cr.P.C. But neither of the courses, though taken, has not been completed by the writ petitioner himself and it is in this circumstance. We are not impressed by the grievance of the petitioner to be entertained or to be granted as violative of the fundamental rights. 11.In the result, this writ petition is dismissed and the Rule issued already, is hereby discharged. Petition dismissed. *****