Dismissed¶20

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

Bombay HC5 Feb 2025APL/1498/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC inherent jurisdiction sparingly exercised; alternative remedy of revision before Sessions Court; issuance of process challenged; Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 cheque dishonour complaint SCC No.107218/2023 Judicial Magistrate First Class Pune; application dismissed with liberty to approach Sessions Court and condonation of delay; merits left open; Bombay High Court Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; R. N. Laddha, J.; respondents Rexel India Private Limited, Proto D Industries Private Limited, State of Maharashtra.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the applicant to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court, with liberty to seek condonation of delay if necessary. ¶20

Sumitkumar Hanumanchand Bagrecha vs Rexel India Private… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRASANJAYSONAWANE SANJAYSONAWANEDate:2025.02.05 18:55:56 +0530 Chitra Sonawane 5-APL-1498-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Cri.Application No.1498 of 2024

¶4

Sumitkumar Hanumanchand Bagrecha Age:36 yrs, Occ :Business R/at: S/o. Hanumanchand S Bagrecha, 12/558, Bagrecha Sadan RP Road cross Ichalkaranji, Kolhapur, Maharashtra 416115 …... Applicant.

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Rexel India Private Limited Through Authorised representative Mr Suraj Dnyaneshwar Alhat Age : 34 yrs, Occ: Service Office at : Office No.407 to 414, 4^th floor, Insignia 6, Sassoon Road, Pune 411001

¶7

Proto D Industries Private Limited Through Directors Mr Pradeep Vasantrao Lokhande Mr Dipakkumar Ramdas Shinde Add: Plot No.57/357, Waghjai Nagar, Kharabwadi, Chakan, Tal.Khed, Pune 410501

¶8

The State of Maharashtra …... Respondents.

¶9

Mr Arjun S Pawar for the applicants. Mr Swapnil Pednekar, APP for respondent/State.

¶10

Page No. 1 of 3 ____________________________________________ 5 February 2025

¶11

Chitra Sonawane 5-APL-1498-2024.doc

¶12

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

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard Mr Arjun Pawar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Mr Swapnil S Pednekar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State.

¶15

The applicant, in this case is arraigned as an accused, in a private complaint bearing SCC No.107218/2023, pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune. The complaint led to issuance of process for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶16

The established legal principle dictates that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly. This is particularly relevant when the applicant has the option to challenge the issuance of process order through an alternative and effective remedy, such as filing a revision before the Sessions Court. In such cases, this Court should refrain from entertaining an application under Section 482 of CrPC. However, it is important to note that if the

¶17

Page No. 2 of 3 ____________________________________________ 5 February 2025

¶18

Chitra Sonawane 5-APL-1498-2024.doc

¶19

revision fails, the applicant is not barred from approaching this Court again under Section 482 CrPC for further relief. This ensures that the applicant has multiple avenues for redress and can seek justice through the appropriate legal channels.

¶20

Given the aforementioned considerations, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. As a result, the application is dismissed accordingly. However, the applicant is granted liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court. Additionally, the applicant may seek condonation of delay, if necessary, ensuring that all procedural requirements are met for a continued pursuit of justice.

¶21

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

¶22

[ R. N. Laddha,J. ]

¶23

Page No. 3 of 3 ____________________________________________ 5 February 2025

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

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

Ajaay S Jajodia vs State of Maharashtra

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