Dismissed¶38

Kalyani Aditya Mineral Limited and Anr. v. Prh Resources Private Limited and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Jan 2025APL/1565/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Six Cri.Applications Nos.1563-1568 of 2024 (Kalyani Aditya Mineral Ltd; Kriti Mittal v. Ameet Enterprises; At Trade Overseas Pvt Ltd; PRH Resources Pvt Ltd) dismissed by Bombay High Court (R.N. Laddha, J.) on 16 January 2025; S.528 BNSS 2023 inherent jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly where alternative effective remedy of revision before Sessions Court exists against issuance of process in S.138 NI Act private complaint; applicants granted liberty to seek revision and condonation of delay; failure of revision does not bar later S.528 approach; merits and contentions left open; no precedent discussed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court and to seek condonation of delay. ¶38

Kalyani Aditya Mineral Limited and Anr. vs Prh Resources… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court and to seek condonation of delay.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 in respect of applicants who have the alternative and effective remedy of revision before the Sessions Court to challenge the issuance of process.

¶37

Court's answer

This Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 sparingly, and refrain from entertaining such applications where the applicants have the alternative and effective remedy of revision before the Sessions Court.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

If the revision before the Sessions Court fails, the applicants are not precluded from approaching this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.

¶37

Key takeaways

This Court has not examined the merits of the matters and all contentions of the parties are left open.obiter¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (R.N. Laddha, J.), by order dated 16 January 2025, dismissed six criminal applications (Cri.Application Nos.1563 to 1568 of 2024) filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 by applicants arraigned as accused in private complaints filed by respondent No.1, which had led to issuance of process for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Holding that inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS should be exercised sparingly, specifically where the applicants have the option to challenge the issuance-of-process order through the alternative and effective remedy of revision before the Sessions Court, the Court declined to invoke it, dismissed the applications with liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court (including seeking condonation of delay), and clarified that failure of revision would not preclude a subsequent approach under Section 528. The Court did not examine the merits and left all contentions open.

¶1

Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY SANJAY SONAWANE SONAWANE Date: 2025.01.17 15:33:21 Chitra Sonawane +0530 7-apl-1563-2024 +5.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

(7) Cri.Application No.1563 of 2024

¶4

Kalyani Aditya Mineral Ltd & Anr.…... Applicants. Vs.

¶5

Ameet Enterprises & Anr. …... Respondents.

¶6

With (8) Cri.Application No.1564 of 2024

Kriti Mittal & Ors.

.…... Applicants.

Vs.

At Trade Overseas Pvt Ltd & Anr. …... Respondents.

¶11

With

¶12

(9) Cri.Application No.1565 of 2024

¶13

Kalyani Aditya Mineral Ltd & Anr.…... Applicants. Vs.

¶14

PRH Resources Pvt Ltd & Anr. …... Respondents. With (10) Cri.Application No.1566 of 2024

Kriti Mittal & Ors.

.….. Applicants.

Vs.

PRH Resources Pvt Ltd & Anr. …... Respondents. With (11) Cri.Application No.1567 of 2024

¶19

Kriti Mittal & Ors. …... Applicants.

¶20

Vs.

¶21

Ameet Enterprises & Anr. …... Respondents.

¶22

Page No. 1 of 3 ____________________________________________ 16 January 2025

¶23

Chitra Sonawane 7-apl-1563-2024 +5.doc

¶24

With

¶25

(12) Cri.Application No.1568 of 2024

¶26

Kalyani Aditya Mineral Ltd & Anr.…... Applicants. Vs.

¶27

At Trade Overseas Pvt Ltd & Anr. …... Respondents.

¶28

Mr R. Kartikey, Sr. Adv. a/w Gaurav Sharma a/w Yogendra Verma a/w Tanay Sakharwade for the applicants.

¶29

Mr Vineet Naik, Sr. Adv. a/w Amod Eklaspur a/w Sayali Shinde i/by Kartikeya & Associates, for respondent No.1.

¶30

Mr MG Patil a/w Mr Swapnil S Pednekar a/w Ms Manisha R Tidke a/w Dr Ashwini A Takalkar, APP for respondent/State.

¶31

Coram : R.N.Laddha, J. Date : 16 January 2025.

¶32

P.C. :

¶33

Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants; learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State.

¶34

The applicants, in these applications have been arraigned as an accused, in a private complaint, filed by respondent No.1. The complaints led to issuance of process for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶35

Page No. 2 of 3 ____________________________________________ 16 January 2025

¶36

Chitra Sonawane 7-apl-1563-2024 +5.doc

¶37

The established legal principle is that this Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,(BNSS), 2023 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. In these circumstances, this Court should refrain from entertaining applications under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. However, if the revision fails, the applicants are not precluded from approaching this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS,2023.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

Page No. 3 of 3 ____________________________________________ 16 January 2025

Kalyani Aditya Mineral Limited and Anr. v. Prh Resources Private Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalyani Aditya Mineral Limited and Anr. v. Prh Resources Private Limited 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

Toufrk Imtiyaz Kureshi and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mangesh Arunchandra Mourya vs the State of Maharashtra

Mushtak Nisar Momin vs the State of Maharashtra

Tanaji Lakshaman Gunjal vs the State of Maharashtra

Kriti Mittal and Ors. vs at Trade Overseas Private Limited through Mr Adarsh Gupta and Anr.

Nandu Gyanu Dhobale vs Gopal Govind Vibhute and Anr.