Dismissed

M/S. Star India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Sept 2005APPLN/1572/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application seeking quashing of legal process, the High Court held that the applicants have an efficacious remedy of revision before the Sessions Court and dismissed their application to quash, allowing them time to prefer the revision.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; liberty granted to prefer revision before Sessions Court by 20.12.2005; interim relief continued till that date.

M/S. Star India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 (-1-)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1572 OF 2005

¶4

 M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors ...Applicants

¶5

 Versus

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents

¶7

 Mr. S.L. Maneshinde, Advocate for Applicants.

¶8

 Mr. S.P. Kanuga, Adv. for respondent No.2.

¶9

 Mr. Rajesh More, A.P.P. for State.

¶10

CORAM:SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.

¶11

DATED: 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2005

¶12

P. C.:-

¶13

 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicants
 i.e. original accused, the learned advocate for the
 respondent No. 2 i.e. original complainant and the
 learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

 2. The applicants have prayed for quashing of
 process issued against them in Criminal Case No.
 62/SW of 2005 which is pending in the Court of
 learned Additional C.M.M., 10th Court, Andheri,
 Mumbai. In the said case, process has been issued
 against the applicants under Sections 406, 420, and
 477(A) of I.P.C.

¶15

 (-2-)

¶16

 3. For the reasons recorded in my order dated 13th
 June, 2005 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.213 of
 2005 and order dated 21st June, 2005 passed in
 Criminal Application No.550 of 2005, the applicants
 have an efficacious remedy of preferring revision
 against the order of Magistrate issuing process.
 Hence, in my opinion, it would be appropriate that
 the applicants prefer revision before the concerned
 Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate
 issuing process.

¶17

 4. Liberty is granted to the applicants to prefer
 revision before the concerned Sessions Court. The
 learned advocate for the applicants states that some
 of the directors have left the company and they would
 have to be contacted which would take time. Hence,
 he states that the necessary revision would be
 preferred by 20.12.2005. Mr. Kanuga, the learned
 advocate for the respondent No.2 i.e. original
 complainant states that they will not proceed with
 the trial till then. In view of this statement,
 interim relief granted by this Court is continued
 till 20.12.2005. The learned advocate for the
 respondent 2 i.e. original complainant fairly states
 that no objection would be raised in respect of delay
 in filing revision if the revision is filed by
 20.12.2005, before the learned Sessions Judge.

¶18

 (-3-)

¶19

 5. On the necessary revision being preferred by the
 applicants before the concerned Sessions Court, the
 concerned Sessions Court shall dispose of the same on
 merits after hearing necessary parties.

¶20

 6. Application is disposed of.

¶21

 *****

M/S. Star India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Star India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ravindra Mahadeo Dhadake

Marappa @ Gurusidha Bhimrao Padavale Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ravindra Mahadeo Dhadake

Rohini Pratap Sampat Vs M/S Therapeutic Pharmaceuticals and Ors.

Suresh Narsappa Talwar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Arihant Apparels and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.