Dismissed

Prakash Vanzara v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Aug 2006APPLN/874/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Application No.874 of 2005, the Bombay High Court single judge dismissed the applicant's plea for quashing an order issuing process on a private complaint. The court held that the decision in V.K. Jain prohibts entertaining Section 482 applications where a specific remedy, such as revision before the Sessions Court, is available, noting that condonation of delay could be sought later.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application rejected with liberty to file a Revision Application against the impugned order.

Prakash Vanzara Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.874 OF 2005.

Prakash Vanzara.

... Applicant.

Versus.

The State of Maharashtra & another ... Respondents.

¶8

Shri S.V.Marwadi with Shri Prakash Naik for the Applicant.

¶9

Shri U.V.Nikam, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

¶10

CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J.

¶11

DATED : 17th August, 2006.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1.		The	prayer in	this applicati	on unde	r section 482
of	the	Code	of	Criminal	Pro	cedure, 1973	is	for	quashing
the	order		passed	by	the	learned	Judicial		Magistrate

¶14

First Class issuing process on a private complaint filed by the 2nd Respondent.

¶15

2.	In vie	w of th	e decision of this Court	in the
case	of V.K.Jain	and	others v/s.	Pratap	V. Padode	and
another,	reported	in	2005 (3) Ma	h.L.J.	page 778,	this
application	under		section 482 of	the	Code of	Criminal
Procedure,	1973	ca	nnot be en	tertained.	The	learned
single	Judge	of	this Court in	the	aforesaid	decision
held	that the	power	of the Hi	gh Court	under section	482
of the	said Code	sho	uld not be	resorted	to if there	is a
specific	provision	for	redressal of	the	grievance of	the
aggrieved	party.		This Court	observed	that against	an

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

order	issuing	process,	effica	cious	remedy	of	preferring
Revision	Application	before	the		Sessions	Court	is
available	and	therefore,	in	such	a case	A	pplication

¶18

under section 482 of the said Code should not be

¶19

entertained.

¶20

In view of the said decision of the learned

¶21

Single Judge of this Court, I am not inclined to

¶22

entertain this Criminal Application.

¶23

Shri Marwadi, the learned Counsel appearing for

¶24

the	Applic	ant	subm	itted	that		necessa	ry	guidelines should
be	laid	down	for	the	benefit	of	the	S	essions Court. In
my	view	such	an	exercise	is	not	requi	red	to be done as
the	pos	ition	of	law	as	regar	ds	the	principles governing
the	issu	ance	of	process	on	a	priva	te	complaint are very
well	settl	ed.	Sh	ri Mar	wadi	subm	itted	that	in case the
Applicant		prefers		a	Revi	sion	Appli	cation	before the

¶25

Sessions Court, limitation will come in the way of the

¶26

Applicant.

¶27

5.	It is	obvious tha	t if the	Applicatio	n for
condonation	of	delay	is	made	by	the	App	licant,	the
concerned	Sessions	Court	will	cons	ider	the	fact	that	the
present	application	was	fi	led in	this		Court	on	8th
February	2005	and	this	Court	issued		notice	to	the

¶28

Respondent No.2 and that the application remained

¶29

pending till today.

¶30

: 3 :

¶31

In view of what is stated above, the Application

¶32

is rejected	with	liberty	to	the	Applic	ant	to	file	a
Revision	Application	against	the		order	im	pugned	in	this
Application.	It is	obvious	that	it	will	be	open	for	the

¶33

Applicant to raise all permissible contentions in the

¶34

Revision Application.

¶35

Judge.

Prakash Vanzara v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Vanzara 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

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mustaq Ismail Memon and 4 Ors.

Munaf K. Vadgama and Anr. Vs Dinesh N. Kotecha and Ors.

Bhanumati Shyamnarain Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sandeep Vijay Nimbalkar Vs Deepali Vijay Hande

Shri.Ramchandra Laxman Shinde Vs Shri.Rudrappa Pandurang Punekar and Ors.

Vs