Disposed

Radhika Sanjay Godse v. Subhas Vishnu Gokhale and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Sept 2005WP/760/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash summons proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding the petitioner had an efficacious remedy via revision. Consequently, the petitions were disposed of by granting liberty to prefer revision and staying proceedings against the accused for four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of; liberty granted to prefer revision; trial stayed for four weeks pending revision against accused no.5.

Radhika Sanjay Godse Vs Subhas Vishnu Gokhale and Ors. — 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.760 OF 2005
 WITH
 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.761 OF 2005

¶5

 Smt.Radhika Sanjay Godse ..Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

 Shri.Subhash Vishnu Gokhale
 and Ors. ..Respondents

¶8

 Mr.S.M.Oak i/b Ambar Joshi Advocate for Petitioner
 Mr.Y.S.Shinde, A.P.P. for the State in
 Cri.W.P.No.760 of 2005
 Mr.S.R.Shinde, A.P.P. for the State in
 Cri.W.P.No.761 of 2005.

¶9

 CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.
 DATE : SEPT. 2,2005

¶10

P.C.

¶11

 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner
 and the learned A.P.P. for the State in both the
 petitions.

¶12

 2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of
 proceedings relating to Criminal Case Nos.626 of
 2002 and 809 of 2002 pending before the Chief
 Judicial Magistrate, Thane. In the said case,

¶13

-2-

¶14

 process has been issued against the petitioner
 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
 The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted
 that the learned Magistrate committed an error in
 issuing process and the said process deserves to be
 set aside. It is further submitted that if the
 process issued against the petitioner is set aside,
 the proceedings in respect of the petitioner, would
 come to an end.

¶15

 3. For the reasons recorded in my order dated 13th
 June, 2005 in W.P.No. 213 of 2005 and dated 21st
 June, 2005 in Cri.Application No.550 of 2005, I am
 of the opinion that the petitioner has an
 efficacious remedy of preferring revision against
 the order of Magistrate issuing process. Hence, in
 my view, it would be appropriate that the
 petitioner prefers a revision before the concerned
 Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate
 issuing process.

¶16

 4. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to prefer
 the necessary revision before the concerned
 Sessions Court. The learned advocate for the

¶17

-3-

¶18

 petitioner makes a statement that the necessary
 revision will be preferred within four weeks from
 today. In view of this statement, the trial Court
 shall not proceed with the trial for a period of
 four weeks. It is made clear that the stay is

¶19

 granted to the proceedings qua accused no.5 only.

¶20

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

¶21

 6. Writ Petitions are disposed of.

¶22

 [V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Radhika Sanjay Godse v. Subhas Vishnu Gokhale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhika Sanjay Godse v. Subhas Vishnu Gokhale and Ors.

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

Vakil Ramzan Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Urison Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Shikhar Trading Ltd.and Ors.

Abubakar Sow Vs P.V. Nayak and Anr.

Pravin Mane Vs Jayeshbhai Sanghvi

Pravin Mane Vs Jayeshbhai Sanghvi and Anr.

sreemohan d. mundra and Ors. Vs m/s. m.g. construction company and Anr.