Disposed

Anuja Sachin Vaidya and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Nov 2013WP/622/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Criminal Writ Petition was rejected as the petitioners had an efficacious alternative statutory remedy in the revisional jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions. The Court directed the Sessions Court to entertain any revision filed within one month and decide it within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; Writ petitioner directed to approach Sessions Court within one month for revision; Sessions Court to decide within three months.

Anuja Sachin Vaidya and Another Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Cri.W.P.622.13.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 622 OF 2013

¶5

Mrs. Anuja Sachin Vaidya and another.

¶6

.. PETITIONERS

¶7

-VERSUS-

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

.. RESPONDENT

¶10

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Bhide Vinod Y. APP for Respondent : Mr. S.R. Palnitkar

¶11

CORAM : A.M. THIPSAY, J. Dated: November 18, 2013

¶12

ORAL ORDER :-

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Heard the learned A.P.P.

¶14

The petitioners are the accused nos. 2 and 3 respectively, in R.C.C.

¶15

No. 94 of 2010 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Washi, Dist. Osmanabad. The said case is in respect of offences punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), section 468 of IPC, section 470 of IPC, section 471 of IPC, section 420 of IPC, section 120B of IPC read

¶16

with section 34 of IPC. The petitioners made an application for discharge contending that the police report and the accompanying documents did not make out any case for proceeding against them. This application was

¶17

Cri.W.P.622.13.odt

¶18

¶19

rejected by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 05.09.2012.

¶20

Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have approached this Court invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have a good case on merits, and that, the order refusing to discharge them is erroneous.

¶22

What needs to be observed is that the impugned order is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions and/or this Court. Since there exists an efficacious statutory remedy in favour of the petitioners, it would not be proper to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Under the circumstances, because of the availability of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy to the petitioners, I decline to entertain the present Petition. Needless to say that the petitioners shall be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Court of Sessions challenging the impugned order.

¶23

In the circumstances, however, it would be just and proper to direct that in the event of any application for revision being filed in the Court of Sessions by the petitioners, within a period of one month from today, the Court of Sessions shall entertain the same and examine the matter on merits,

¶24

Cri.W.P.622.13.odt

¶25

¶26

without raising the question of bar of limitation and if necessary by passing a formal order condoning the delay.

¶27

The Revision Petition, if filed before the Court of Sessions, as aforesaid, shall be decided expeditiously by the Court of Sessions and in any

¶28

case, within a period of three months from the date of its filing.

¶29

The Petition is rejected, but with the aforesaid observations and

¶30

directions.

¶31

( ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. ) *******

¶32

sga/-

Anuja Sachin Vaidya and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuja Sachin Vaidya and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Rajesh Chandmal Varma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anil Sampat Chavan Vs Indubai Anil Chavan

Balaji Bhujangrao Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhimrao Limbada Kadam and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sheshrao@Vijay Bhikaji Salve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Nijam Gayasuddin Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra