This petition challenged the failure to issue process against accused no.3 despite cheques signed by him. The court held writ jurisdiction was inappropriate and rejected the petition, granting liberty to approach the J.M.F.C. or file a revision.
Petition rejected; liberty granted to approach J.M.F.C. or file revision in Sessions Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
criwp350-10.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.350/2010
Dhondu Lakadu Chaudhari Age 64 yrs, Occ-Pensioner R/o CTS No.2356, Navbharat Khunt, Lane No.6, Dhule. .. PETITIONER
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra [Notice to be served on Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad.
2] Manohar Welchand Shirsale Age 35 yrs, Occ-Bakery Business R/o Arya Cooperative Housing Society Near Hanuman Mandir, Kumar Nagar Dhule .. RESPONDENTS
Mr.Mukul Kulkarni,Adv.for petitioner. Mr.B.J.Sonawane,A.P.P. for State. Respondent no.2 served.
... CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE,J. DATE : 14TH JUNE 2012.
ORAL ORDER :
1] This proceeding is filed to challenge the order made by J.M.F.C. in STCC No.2327/2009. The grievance is that when the
2
criwp350-10.odt
complaint was filed against three accused, process has been issued only as against accused nos.1 and 2 and process has not been issued as against accused no.3 who is a partner of accused no.1 firm. It is submitted that the J.M.F.C. has not made any order in respect of accused no.3 including order of dismissal which could have been made if there was no material as against accused no.3. He submitted that material like cheque is there, which is signed by accused no.3 also. If mistake is committed by J.M.F.C., the mistake can be brought to the notice of the J.M.F.C. and the J.M.F.C. can make appropriate order. If the petitioner believes that the J.M.F.C. has dismissed the complaint as against accused no.3, he can challenge such order by filing appropriate proceeding like revision in Sessions Court. The matter involves the consideration of the relevant facts, material as against accused no.
3 and so, it is not desirable to use extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. Petition is rejected. However, liberty is given to the petitioner either to approach the J.M.F.C. or to file appropriate proceeding in appropriate Court.
[T.V.NALAWADE,J.]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether writ jurisdiction is appropriate to challenge the selection of accused for process issuance.
Whether the petitioner can approach the J.M.F.C. or file revision for the omission regarding accused no.3.
Dhondu Lakadu Chaudhari
The State of Maharashtra
Manohar Welchand Shirsale
T.V.Nalawade
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
