The High Court of Bombay declined to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with an impugned order issuing process against the petitioner, observing that an efficacious statutory remedy was available and the petitioner failed to pursue the present petition diligently.
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.
20-WP-205-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.205 OF 2012
M/S.JYOTI PHARMACHEM )...PETITIONER
V/s.
M/S.KANCHAN RASAYAN AND ANR. )...RESPONDENTS
None for the Petitioner.
None for Respondent No.1.
Ms.R.M.Gadhavi APP for the State.
CORAM: ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
DATE : 3rd JULY, 2013.
P.C. :
1 None appears for the petitioner, when called out.
2 By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 3.8.2011, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 31st Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai, issuing process against the petitioner, who is an accused in Case No.3943/SS/2011, pending before the learned Magistrate.
3 The order impugned is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the court of Sessions, and also of the revisional jurisdiction of this court.
avk 1/2
20-WP-205-2012
4 Since an efficacious statutory remedy is available to the petitioner, and as the petitioner has not pursued the present petition diligently, I decline to interfere in the matter by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this court.
5 The petition is rejected.
(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)
avk 2/2
M/s. Jyoti Pharmachem
M/s. Kanchan Rasayan and Anr.
Abhay M. Thipsay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
