JUDGMENT - PANDYA N.J., J.:Alleging that there was a criminal trespass by the respondent No. 4 along with the husband and their companion Bhupendra where after committing trespass the petitioner was assaulted and severely injured, she approached Santacruz Police Station. The police chose to treat it as a non-cognisable offence and accordingly made an entry in the Police Diary bearing No. 1187 of 1994. 2. On the day of the incident itself, the petitioner was admitted in Nanavati Hospital and was given medical assistance. 3. On 2-5-1994, the petitioner gave a written complaint to the Assistant Commissioner of Police requesting him to order registration of a cognizable offence. On 5-5-1994, the Commissioner of Police was also approached by way of letter. As no action was emanating from the police authorities, the present petition is filed seeking relief of an order or a direction upon the police authorities to register the offence, record the statement of witnesses and after carrying out necessary investigation, arrest the culprits etc. 4. In order that the aforesaid direction can be issued, at least it has to be held prima facie that there is a cognizable offence. Precisely, for this purpose provision is made in the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the Police treat a particular incident as a non-cognizable case, the remedy of dissatisfied complainant is to approach the Magistrate and in the City the Metropolitan Court with a complaint setting out particulars and seek process for a cognizable offence. Sections 154, 190 and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will take care of the situation. 5. Referring to these very sections, in the case of (All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees' Union v. Union of India and others)1, reported in 1996(11) S.C.C. 582 , the Supreme Court has held that the complainant is not entitled to approach the High Court by filing a writ petition and seeking a direction to conduct an investigation by the C.B.I. 6. In the aforesaid matter Their Lordships have clearly held that the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes the procedure to investigate in Chapter XII of the Code and after quoting the relevant provisions and referring to the possibility of police not taking any action, in paragraph 4 it has been held that the complainant is given power under section 190 read with section 200 of the Code to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. The consequences of the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate that would follow is also set out in the said paragraph 4. In the case before the Supreme Court, the complainant had not approached either the police or the Magistrate. In the instant case only difference is that the police has been approached with the aforesaid result. It is an admitted position that no complaint has been filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court. 7. In a similar matter that had arisen before the Goa Bench of this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 303 of 1996 one of us had an occasion to deal with it (N.J. Pandya, J.) and in the judgment given on 14-1-1998, after referring to the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment, writ petition was rejected. 8. When faced with this situation, on behalf of the petitioner two judgments, both of Supreme Court were cited. One relates to the accepted position of writ jurisdiction being available even in cases where an alternative remedy is provided. This is the judgment reported in A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2186 in the case of (Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) and others)2. While accepting the aforesaid principle of availability of writ jurisdiction even though alternative remedy is provided, factual position in the aforesaid judgment clearly indicates that it was an intra departmental appeal to the Vice-Chancellor under section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act. This matter relates to the administrative law where dismissal of Principal of the College was being examined. 9. In the present case, there is specific statutory provision with elaborate machinery established under the very statute taking care of the grievance sought to be redressed by invoking writ jurisdiction. There are no reason whatsoever for by-passing the said machinery. This matter relates to the administrative law where dismissal of Principal of the College was being examined. 9. In the present case, there is specific statutory provision with elaborate machinery established under the very statute taking care of the grievance sought to be redressed by invoking writ jurisdiction. There are no reason whatsoever for by-passing the said machinery. In our opinion, therefore, this is not a case of alternative remedy, bearing few exceptional cases like mala fide etc. In our opinion, this is the only remedy which the petitioner should be directed to take recourse to. 10. In the second decision cited on behalf of the petitioner, there is a reference to mala fide exercise of powers by the police. However, the powers that were exercised and dealt with in the second decision cited on behalf of the petitioner in the case of (S.N. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari)3, reported in A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 786 the police were conducting investigation over which till the reports is filed before the Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure that Magistrate has no control. In this background of statutory provisions Their Lordships have held that if investigation is shown to be mala fide, writ petition would lie. 11. In the instant case as noted above the statutory position is otherwise . When the Police has decided to treat it as non-cognizable case, section 190 and other provisions referred to above is definitely available to the petitioner and following the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment as well as the view taken by this Court in the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of Goa Bench, we therefore held that this petition would not lie. The remedy for the petitioner is to file a complaint. The petition is therefore rejected. 12. We clarify that we have not entered into the merits of the matter at all. Whatever will be the evidence that the petitioner may lead before the trial Court, in the event of the petitioner filing the complaint, the trial Court shall decide the same on its own merits and in accordance with law without in any manner being influenced by the rejection of this petition. 13. The petition is rejected. Rule discharged. Order accordingly. -----