Disposed

Amir Tarik Gore v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Sept 2005WP/374/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Singling out the availability of efficacious revision remedy for quashing process under Section 138 NI Act, the Court dismissed writ petitions listing the petitioner to prefer revision before Sessions Court within five weeks with stay on trial proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; liberty granted to prefer revision within five weeks; trial stays for five weeks.

Amir Tarik Gore Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 (-1-)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 374 OF 2004
 ALONGWITH
 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1789 OF 2005
 ALONGWITH
 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1790 OF 2005

¶5

 Amir Tarik Gore ...Petitioner

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 State of Maharashtra & Anr ...Respondents

¶8

 Mr. Tejas H. Bhatt, Advocate for Petitioner

¶9

 Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar, Adv.for Respondent No.2.

¶10

 Mr. D.P. Adsule, A.P.P. for State in Appln. No.
 374/04.

¶11

 Mr. B.H. Mehta, APP for State in Appln. No. 1789
 of 2005.

¶12

 Mr. .B. KOnde Deshmukh, APP for State in Appln.
 No. 1790 of 2005.

¶13

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

¶14

DATED: 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2005

¶15

P. C.:-

¶16

 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner
 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.

¶17

 2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of process
 issued against him in Criminal Case No.4095 of 2002,

¶18

 (-2-)

¶19

 4093 of 2002 and 4094 of 2002 which are pending in
 the Court of learned J./M.F.C. 5th Court, Kolhapur.
 In the said case, process has been issued against the
 petitioner under Section 138 r.w. 142 of Negotiable
 Instruments Act.

¶20

 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 petitioner
 has an efficacious remedy of preferring revision
 against the order of Magistrate issuing process.
 Hence, in my opinion, it would be appropriate that
 the petitioner prefers revision before the concerned
 Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate
 issuing process.

¶21

 4. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to prefer
 revision before the concerned Sessions Court. The
 learned advocate for the petitioner states that the
 necessary revision would be preferred within a period
 of five weeks from today. In view of this statement,
 the trial Court shall not proceed with the trial for
 a period of five weeks from today. The learned
 advocate for the respondent No. 2 i.e. original
 complainant fairly states that no objection would be
 raised in respect of delay in filing revision before
 the learned Sessions Judge.

¶22

 (-3-)

¶23

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

¶24

 6. Writ Petitions are disposed of.

¶25

 *****

Amir Tarik Gore v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amir Tarik Gore v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pravin Mane Vs Jayeshbhai Sanghvi

Pravin Mane Vs Jayeshbhai Sanghvi and Anr.

Radhika Sanjay Godse Vs Subhas Vishnu Gokhale and Ors.

Babasaheb Dadasaheb Koli Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amir Tarik Gore Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anusha Shetty and Anr. Vs Sanjay v.Bhandare and Anr.