Dismissed¶21

Amita Bhagwanta Nyaynit and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Jan 2025APL/1556/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Criminal Application No.1556 of 2024, R.N. Laddha J., 13 January 2025. Accused in private complaint under Section 138 NI Act seeking quashing of process via Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; alternate remedy of revision before Sessions Court must be availed first; liberty granted to file revision with condonation of delay; contentions left open.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the applicants to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court and to seek condonation of any delay; the Court did not examine the merits and left all contentions of the parties open. ¶21

Amita Bhagwanta Nyaynit and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should entertain an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging issuance of process when the applicants have an alternate and effective remedy of revision before the Sessions Court.

¶20

Court's answer

This Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sparingly; where the applicants have the option to challenge the issuance of a process order through the alternate and effective remedy of revision before the Sessions Court, the Court should refrain from entertaining an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

If the revision before the Sessions Court fails, the applicant is not precluded from approaching this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Key takeaways

The Court was not inclined to invoke its inherent jurisdiction; the application was dismissed with liberty to the applicants to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court and to seek condonation of delay, without examining the merits and leaving all contentions open.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by persons arraigned as accused in a private complaint filed by respondent No.2, pursuant to which process was issued for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 (as printed in the judgment). Held: the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly; where an alternate and effective remedy of revision before the Sessions Court is available to challenge the issuance of process, the High Court should refrain from entertaining the Section 482 application, and failure of the revision does not preclude a subsequent approach to the High Court. The application was dismissed with liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court and to seek condonation of delay; the merits were not examined and all contentions were left open. (Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.; decided 13 January 2025.)

¶1

SMITA Digitally signed bySMITA JOHNSON JOHNSONGONSALVES GONSALVESDate: 2025.01.1401:12:51 +0530

¶2

10.apl1556-24.docx

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

Criminal Application No.1556 of 2024

¶6

Amita Bhagwanta Nyaynit And Ors. … Applicants

¶7

versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents

¶9

Ms Jyoti Panicker, for the applicants.

¶10

Mr VN Sagare, APP, for respondent No.1/State.

¶11

Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 13 January 2025.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

. Heard Ms Jyoti Panicker, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants, and Mr VN Sagare, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1/State.

¶14

The applicants in this case are arraigned as accused in a private complaint filed by respondent No.2. The complaint led to issuance of process for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981.

¶15

The established legal principle is that this Court should

Page 1 of 2

13 January 2025

10.apl1556-24.docx

exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sparingly. Specifically, when the applicants have the option to challenge the issuance of a process order through the alternate and effective remedy of revision before the Sessions Court, this Court should refrain from entertaining an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, if the revision fails, the applicant is not precluded from approaching this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶21

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

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶23

(R.N. Laddha, J.)

¶24

Page 2 of 2

¶25

13 January 2025

Amita Bhagwanta Nyaynit and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amita Bhagwanta Nyaynit and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Rajkumar Chainrai Basantani vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dinesh Rameshwar Singh @ Saheb Singh vs State of Maharashtra

Dinesh Rameshwar Singh @ Saheb Singh vs State of Maharashtra

Akshaya Ravindra Khedekar vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sahil Monesh Raut vs Dcp Zone 1 and Ors.

Vakil Khairati Khan vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.