Dismissed¶¶23

M/S Ellora Project Consultant Pvt. Ltd. through Shri Ketan Belsare and Ors. v. Ramesh Dharmaraj Yadav and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Feb 2025APL/1138/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC inherent jurisdiction declined where Sessions Court revision remedy available; issuance of process in private complaint CC No.133/SW/2021 for Sections 406, 420 IPC challenged; application dismissed with liberty to move Sessions Court and seek condonation of delay; contentions left open; Bombay High Court; R. N. Laddha, J.; 5 February 2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the applicants to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court and to seek condonation of delay; merits not examined and all contentions left open. ¶¶23

M/S Ellora Project Consultant Pvt. Ltd. through Shri… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the applicants to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court and to seek condonation of delay; merits not examined and all contentions left open.

¶¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should entertain the applicants' application under Section 482 CrPC challenging the issuance of process in private complaint CC No.133/SW/2021, when the applicants have an alternative and effective remedy of revision before the Sessions Court.

¶¶22

Court's answer

This Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC sparingly, and should refrain from entertaining the application where the applicants have an alternative and effective remedy of revision before the Sessions Court; if the revision fails, the applicants are not precluded from approaching this Court under Section 482 CrPC.

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

The Court is not inclined to invoke its inherent jurisdiction; the application stands dismissed, with liberty to the applicants to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court and to seek condonation of delay.

¶¶23

Key takeaways

The Court has not examined the merits of the matter and all contentions of the parties are left open.ratio¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction (Cri.Application No.1138 of 2024, Coram: R. N. Laddha, J., decided 5 February 2025): Applicants, arraigned as accused in private complaint CC No.133/SW/2021 filed by respondent No.1 in which process was issued for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, approached the Court under Section 482 CrPC. Held: inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC ought to be exercised sparingly, particularly where the applicants have an alternative and effective remedy of revision before the Sessions Court; if the revision fails, the applicants are not precluded from approaching this Court under Section 482 CrPC. The application was dismissed with liberty to institute appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court and to seek condonation of delay; the merits were not examined and all contentions of the parties were left open.

¶1

Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRASANJAYSONAWANE SANJAYSONAWANEDate:2025.02.05 16:58:02 +0530

¶2

Chitra Sonawane 3-APL-1138-2024.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Cri.Application No.1138 of 2024

¶5

M/s Ellora Project Consultant Pvt Ltd. Represented through its Director Mr Ketan Belsare, Age -52 years, having its address at Flat No.317-321, Building No.7, Ninad Grih Nirman Society, Kher Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051.

¶6

Ketan Krishna Belsare Age 52 years, Occ: Professional Having address at Flat No.317-321, Building No.7, Ninad Grih Nirman Society, Kher Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051.

¶7

Pradeep Bhagoji Mudras Age 51 years, Occ: Business Having address at Flat No.317-321, Building No.7, Ninad Grih Nirman Society, Kher Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051.

¶8

… Applicants.

¶9

Versus

¶10

Ramesh Dharmaraj Yadav Age:47 years, Occ: Service,

¶11

Page No. 1 of 3 ____________________________________________ 5 February 2025

¶12

Chitra Sonawane 3-APL-1138-2024.doc

¶13

Having address at Flat No.401, B Wing, Shankar Wadi SRA CHS Ltd, Behind Hub Town Viva Mall, Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai-400 060

¶14

The State of Maharashtra Represented by the ofice of the Public Prosecutor High Court, Mumbai.

¶15

…... Respondents.

¶16

Mr Nikhil Adkine, Advocate for the applicants. Mr Swapnil S Pednekar, APP for respondent/State.

¶17

Coram : R.N.Laddha, J. Date : 5 February 2025. P.C. :

¶18

Heard Mr Nikhil Adkine, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants and Mr Swapnil S Pednekar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State.

¶19

The applicants, in this case are arraigned as an accused, in a private complaint bearing CC No.133/SW/2021, filed by respondent No.1. The complaint led to issuance of process for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

Page No. 2 of 3 ____________________________________________ 5 February 2025

¶21

Chitra Sonawane 3-APL-1138-2024.doc

¶22

The established legal principle is that this Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, sparingly. Specifically when the applicants have the option to challenge the issuance of process order through alternative and effective remedy of revision before the Sessions Court. This Court should refrain from entertaining the application under Setion 482 of CrPC. However, if the revision fails, the applicants are not precluded from approaching this Court under Section 482 CrPC.

¶23

In light of the above, this Court is not inclined to invoke the inherent jurisdiction. The application stands dismissed accordingly, but the applicants are granted liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court. Furthermore, the applicants may seek condonation of delay.

¶24

It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the matter and all contentions of the parties are left open.

¶25

[ R. N. Laddha,J. ]

¶26

Page No. 3 of 3 ____________________________________________ 5 February 2025

M/S Ellora Project Consultant Pvt. Ltd. through Shri Ketan Belsare and Ors. v. Ramesh Dharmaraj Yadav and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ellora Project Consultant Pvt. Ltd. through Shri Ketan Belsare and Ors. v. Ramesh Dharmaraj Yadav and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul @ Lalan Shivaji Shinde vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Maruti Vishvambhar Gavali vs State of Maharashtra

Sudharshan Banerjee vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ajaay S Jajodia vs State of Maharashtra

M/S. Naksh Trading Company vs the State of Maharashtra

Sumitkumar Hanumanchand Bagrecha vs Rexel India Private Limited through Mr Suraj Dnyaneshwar Alhat and Ors.