Dismissed

Amar Bahadur Singh Batuk Singh and Ors. v. Kishore Dwarkadas Fulwani and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Oct 2013WP/342/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a criminal writ petition as the petitioners failed to avail the efficacious alternative remedy of revision before the Court of Sessions. The interim order was extended for six weeks pending the disposal of the revision application without a limitation bar. Counsel fees were awarded.

What did the court decide?

The petition is rejected. The interim order remains in force for six weeks. The Court of Sessions shall entertain the revision application within six weeks without raising the question of bar of limit

Amar Bahadur Singh Batuk Singh and Ors. Vs Kishore… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

crwp342.12

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.342 OF 2012

¶6

AMAR BAHADUR SINGH BATUK SINGH AND OTHERS.

¶7

...PETITIONERS.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

KISHOR DWARKADAS FULAWANI AND ANR.

¶10

...RESPONDENTS

¶11

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Godsay S.M. APP for Respondent-State: Mr.V.P. Kadam. Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Jagiasi S.H. (appointed)

¶12

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

¶13

Dated: October 18, 2013.

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

Heard Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioners,

¶16

Mr. Kadam, learned A.P.P. for the respondent - State and

¶17

Mr. Jagiasi, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶18

On 4th October, 2013, when this matter appeared

¶19

crwp342.12

¶20

¶21

before this Court, Mr. Jagiasi, learned Counsel, who has been appointed by the Court for the respondent No.1original complainant, was directed to ascertain whether the Court of Sessions had been approached before filing Criminal Application No.4224/2008 and whether the Writ Petition No.619/2008 had been allowed, or had been dismissed. Mr. Jagiasi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 states that on verifying, he has found that the Court of Sessions had not been approached before filing the Criminal Application No.4224/2008. He also states that Writ Petition

¶22

No.619/2008 had not been allowed but, dismissed.

¶23

It is not disputed before me that the petitioners have an efficacious statutory remedy of approaching the Court of Sessions in revision. In view of existence of an efficacious alternative remedy, which has not been availed of by the petitioners, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition.

¶24

crwp342.12

¶25

¶26

Needless to say that the petitioners will be at liberty to

¶27

file proper proceedings before the Court of Sessions for challenging the order issuing process against him and/or

¶28

his prosecution.

¶29

The petition is rejected with the aforesaid

¶30

observations.

¶31

Since the petitioners were protected by an interim order passed by this Court for quite some time, it is directed that the interim relief shall continue to remain in force for a period of six weeks from today, notwithstanding that the petition has been rejected.

¶32

In the event of the petitioners approaching the Court of Sessions, within a period of six weeks from today, the Court of Sessions shall entertain the revision application and consider the same, on merits, without raising the question of bar of limitation.

¶33

crwp342.12

¶34

¶35

The learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, who was appointed by the Court, shall be paid fees quantified at Rs.

¶36

2500/-.

¶37

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)

¶38

PLK/*

Amar Bahadur Singh Batuk Singh and Ors. v. Kishore Dwarkadas Fulwani and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Bahadur Singh Batuk Singh and Ors. v. Kishore Dwarkadas Fulwani 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

Viral Malaybhai Dalal Vs Jhaveri Flexo (India) Ltd.

Prashant Ramesh Sawant Vs Manisha Prashant Sawant and Another

Suresh @ Udhavlal Tillumal Lalwani and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jalgaon Cloth Merchant Urban Co-Op Credit Soc. Ltd. Vs Rajendra Maganrao Sonwane and Anr.

Satishchandra Ramchandra Wani Vs Kishor Dwarkadas Fulawani and Anr.

Khema Rama Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another