Dismissed

Laxminarayan Namdeo Zalwar v. Dr. Nikhil Govindsing Rajput

Bombay HC22 Nov 2013WP/419/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Writ Petition filed under constitutional jurisdiction, the petitioner aggrieved by a dismissal order under Section 203 CrPC withdrew the petition. The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file a revision application before the Sessions Court.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Writ Petition allowed to be withdrawn; stands dismissed with liberty to approach the Court of Sessions.

Laxminarayan Namdeo Zalwar Vs Dr. Nikhil… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No. 419 of 2013

¶4

Laxminarayan s/o. Namdeo Zalwar, Age : 59 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Ajantha, Taluka : Sillod, District : Aurangabad. .. Petitioner.

¶5

versus

¶6

Dr. Nikhil s/o. Govindsing Rajput, Age : 33 years, Occupation : Doctor, R/o. Tilaknagar, Jalgaon Road, Sillod, Taluka : Sillod, District : Aurangabad. .. Respondent.

¶7

Mr. S.S. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶8

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

¶9

DATE : 22ND NOVEMBER 2013

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22nd April

¶13

(2)

¶14

2013, passed by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Sillod, dismissing the complaint filed by him, under the provisions of Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [For short, "the Code" ]. He has, therefore, approached this Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction.

¶15

The order, dismissing a complaint under the provisions of Section 203 of the Code, is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions. As a matter of fact, apart from Section 397 of the Code, the provisions of Section 398, which also speak of revision, and specifically refer to a complaint that has been dismissed under Section 203 of the Code, make it clear that a remedy of filing an application for revision is available to the petitioner.

¶16

When this aspect of the matter is discussed in the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would not press the present petition and would take appropriate steps for filing an application for revision in the Court of Sessions, challenging the impugned order.

¶17

Needless to say that, the petitioner shall be at liberty to do so.

¶18

The impugned order has been passed on 22nd April 2013, and the present petition has been filed promptly i.e. on 30th April 2013. Thereafter, it has remained pending in this Court till today. The Revision Application intended to be filed, therefore, can be filed within the limitation provided for by law.

¶19

(3)

¶20

The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed to be withdrawn, and stands dismissed, as such, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court of Sessions for appropriate relief.

¶21

( ABHAY M. THIPSAY )

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

bgp/criwp419

Laxminarayan Namdeo Zalwar v. Dr. Nikhil Govindsing Rajput

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxminarayan Namdeo Zalwar v. Dr. Nikhil Govindsing Rajput

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sayara Begum Shaikh Kalim and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ram Gahininath Bodkhe and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ashwinikumar Bhimashankar Jujgar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dnyaneshwar Keshav Kachgunde Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Jayshree Ratnakar Hogale Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Bhagwat Rajaram Patil Vs the State of Mah and Anr.