Dismissed

Labib-Ul-Hasan Mohd. Shoyab Ahemad and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC11 Oct 2013WP/185/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Aurangabad rejected a criminal writ petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The court held that since the Magistrate had not yet considered the police report under Section 239 CrPC, the petitioners should have exhausted the statutory remedy before approaching the High Court.

What the court decided

AI extract

Labib-Ul-Hasan Mohd. Shoyab Ahemad and Others Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Cri.W.P.185.13.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 185 OF 2013

¶5

Labib-Ul-Hasan S/o Mohd. Shoyab Ahemad and others.

¶6

..PETITIONERS

¶7

-VERSUS-

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

and another.

¶10

..RESPONDENTS

¶11

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V.P. Latange A.P.P. for Respondent/State : Mr. S.R. Palnitkar

¶12

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. Dated: October 11, 2013

¶13

ORAL ORDER :-

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶15

The petitioners are the accused in R.C.C. No. 522/2012 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parbhani. The said case is in respect of offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 323 of IPC, Section 504 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. It is on the basis of the first information report lodged by the respondent no.2 herein that the matter was investigated into and after investigation, the police report alleging the commission of aforesaid offences has been filed. The petitioners, being aggrieved by filing of the report alleging aforesaid offences against them, have approached this Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction.

¶16

Cri.W.P.185.13.odt

¶17

¶18

Apparently, no charge in the matter has been framed as yet. At least, that is not the case of the petitioners.

¶19

The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the plea that the police report and accompanied documents do not make out a case for proceeding against the petitioners.

¶20

If such is the case, this can be pointed out to the Magistrate. Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) requires the Magistrate to decide, after going through the police report and accompanying documents and after giving an opportunity of being heard, to the prosecution as well as the accused, whether or not , there are grounds for further proceeding, by framing of charge, in accordance with section 240 of the Code.

¶21

When this aspect of the matter is discussed, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are cases in which the High Courts and the Supreme Court have entertained Writ Petitions for quashing proceedings even though an alternative statutory remedy was available to the parties and that, there is no bar for exercising jurisdiction of this Court, inspite of availability of an alternative statutory remedy. He sought to place reliance on some cases where the challenge to the proceedings was entertained, irrespective of and inspite of, availability of an alternative remedy.

¶22

Surely, there would be no jurisdictional bar in exercising the writ jurisdiction of this Court inspite of the existence of an alternative remedy. However, it is also well settled that where there exists an

¶23

3 Cri.W.P.185.13.odt

¶24

efficacious statutory remedy, this Court would be justified in not invoking its writ jurisdiction, which is of an extra ordinary nature. In the instant case, the petitioners have, apparently, moved this court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction before the Magistrate has applied his mind to the aspect, as to whether the police report and accompanying documents make out a case for proceeding against the petitioners, or any of them.

¶25

Under these circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this

¶26

petition.

¶27

The Petition is rejected.

¶28

( ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. )

¶29

¶30

sga/-

Labib-Ul-Hasan Mohd. Shoyab Ahemad and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Labib-Ul-Hasan Mohd. Shoyab Ahemad and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vitthal Dhondiba Suryawanshi Vs the Dist. Supdt. of Police, Beed and Ors.

Bharadwaj Yadavrao Pagare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Madan Tulsiram Hembade Vs Ashok Sonaji Hembade

Mubashir Ahemad Mohd. Shoyab Ahemad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Mohamad Ekball Mohammad Illyas Ansari @ Ikbal Doller Vs Noor Mohammad Jan Mohammad Dead through His Legal Heirs Jaibunisa Noor Mohammad Ansari and Ors.

Babasaheb Shrirang Hapase Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others