JUDGMENT Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. 1. The petitioner had filed Criminal Writ Petition No.21109 of 2013 in order to challenge the order of the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi dated 17 August 2013 and an order dated 6 September 2013 of the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (EC Act), Varanasi. While dismissing the petition, the learned Single Judge held as follows: "In the present case, the petitioner was named in the first information report lodged at Case Crime no.142 of 2012 under Sections 363 & 366 IPC. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Varanasi, the victim has specifically implicated the role of present petitioner. The victim has stated specifically that other accused persons had talked with the petitioner and he had specifically told that Pradeep Dubey had said to kill him due to case lodged against him. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the allegations made in the first information report as well as the evidence collected during investigation do not satisfy the ingredients of offences. Learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as learned Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi have considered all the aspects in detail. I do not find any material irregularity or illegality or perversity in the impugned orders and the cognizance against the petitioner has been taken upon sufficient evidence which has also been discussed in the impugned summoning order dated 17.8.2013." 2. The petitioner has now filed a petition ostensibly in the public interest. This is not a petition in the public interest but one palpably in the private interest. Recourse to the jurisdiction under Article 226 in the public interest is clearly not available since the petitioner has remedies available in criminal law which he has pursued. Hence, the petition is dismissed.