The Single Judge held that the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy of filing a revision before the Sessions Court. Consequently, the writ petition was rejected as the writ jurisdiction was not invoked, with no opinion expressed on the merits.
Writ Petition stands rejected.
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.
17.WP.2673.2019.doc
1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2673 OF 2019
Kamdhenu Developers
...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
...Respondents
Mr. V.R. Garad for the Petitioner.
Mr. N.B. Patil, APP for Respondent – State.
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 03rd SEPTEMBER 2019
P.C.:
the complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief.
Umesh Malani
17.WP.2673.2019.doc
2/2
and the Petitioner has alternate and efficacious remedy of filing Revision, this Court is not inclined to invoke the Writ Jurisdiction and entertain this petition. Hence, Writ Petition stands rejected. It is made clear that, this Court has not expressed opinion on contentions raised on merits in the Petition.
Umesh Malani
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should invoke its writ jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings when the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of filing a revision.
Whether the petitioner should have approached the Sessions Court for revision instead of filing a criminal writ petition.
Kamdhenu Developers
The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
S.S. Shinde
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
