Partly allowed

Hukumichand Jain and Anr. v. Gangadhar P. Rohera and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Apr 2013WP/1586/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed two writ petitions challenging the issue of criminal process to be withdrawn. The petitioners were directed to file appropriate proceedings before the Court of Sessions within one month without limitation bar, and the trial was suspended for one month.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions are allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed as such, with liberty to file proceedings before the Court of Sessions within one month. The trial is suspended for one month.

Hukumichand Jain and Anr. Vs Gangadhar P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1/3 (21)WP.1586-1587-12

¶2

Tilak

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.1586 of 2012

¶6

Hukumichand Jain and anr ... Petitioners versus .Gangadhar P. Rohera and anr ... Respondents

¶7

WITH

¶8

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1587 of 2012

¶9

Mohanlal Bisanlal Jain ... Petitioner versus Gangadhar P. Rohera and anr ... Respondents

¶10

Mr.E.A.Sasi, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr.L.H. Patil i/b Mr.Yatin N. Shah, Advocate for the respondent no.1 in both the petitions.

¶12

Mrs.R.V.Newton, APP for the State.

¶13

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

¶14

DATED : APRIL 26, 2013

¶15

P.C.

¶16

1 Heard Mr.E.A.Sasi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Heard Mr.L.H. Patil, Advocate for the respondent no.1 in both the petitions. Heard Mrs.R.V.Newton, learned APP for the State.

¶17

2/3 (21)WP.1586-1587-12

¶18

2 By these petitions, the petitioners who are the accused in C.C.No.1010 of 2007 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vashi at CBD Belapur, are challenging the issue of process against them. These petitions can therefore, conveniently be disposed by this common order.

¶19

3 The substance of the contentions advanced by the petitioners is that there were no sufficient grounds for proceeding against any of them. It is submitted that the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature.

¶20

4 The order issuing process is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction. instead of invoking the revisional jurisdiction, the petitioners have approached this court invoking its constitutional and inherent jurisdiction.

¶21

5 When it is pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioners that the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy may result in this Court declining to invoke its writ jurisdiction, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in that case, he would not press the Writ Petitions, and would approach the Court of Sessions for an appropriate relief. He, however, submits in such an event, the question of limitation for filing the proceedings before the Sessions Court, would arise, and that, if appropriate directions in that regard are being given to the Court of Sessions, he would withdraw the petitions.

¶22

3/3 (21)WP.1586-1587-12

¶23

6 Since the petitions have been pending before this Court for quite some time, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is reasonable.

¶24

7 The petitions are allowed to be withdrawn, and stand dismissed as such, with liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings before the Court of Sessions.

¶25

8 In the event of such proceedings being filed before the Court of Sessions within a period of one month from today, the Court of Sessions shall entertain and consider the matter on merits, without raising the issue of limitation.

¶26

9 The learned Magistrate shall not proceed further with the trial of the case for a period of one month from today.

¶27

10 Petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶28

( ABHAY M.THIPSAY,J )

Hukumichand Jain and Anr. v. Gangadhar P. Rohera and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hukumichand Jain and Anr. v. Gangadhar P. Rohera and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Alias Raju Kaluram Shewale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Swapnil Baban Wanga and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramu Kashinath Dalvi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chandrashekhar Dinkar Katale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dattatray Narayan Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sagar Gyaneshwar Mule Vs the State of Maharashtra