M/S Klaus Warren Fixtures Pvt. Ltd. through Mr Narshi Mulji… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2025)

M/S Klaus Warren Fixtures Pvt. Ltd. through Mr Narshi Mulji… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

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

Issue for consideration

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

Court's answer

The Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sparingly; where the petitioners have the alternate and effective remedy of revision before the Sessions Court to challenge the issuance of process, the Court should refrain from entertaining a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Ratio / Principle

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

Key takeaways

The Court declined to invoke its inherent jurisdiction and dismissed the petition, granting the petitioners liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court and to seek condonation of any delay; the merits were not examined and all contentions were left open.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by persons arraigned as accused in a private complaint filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation, wherein process was issued for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981. Held: inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must 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 petition, and failure of the revision does not preclude recourse to Section 482 Cr.P.C. thereafter. Petition dismissed with liberty to approach the Sessions Court and seek condonation of delay; merits not examined, contentions left open.

Mamta Kale

505-wp-2458-2024.docx

MAMTAAMARKALE Digitallysigned byMAMTAAMARKALEDate:2025.01.1811:11:49+0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Writ Petition No. 2458 of 2024

M/s. Klaus Warren Fixtures Pvt. Ltd. (Through its authorized representative Mr Narshi Mulji Shah) A company, incorporated under Companies Act 1956, Now 2013 Unit No.7, Nan Deep, Industrial Estate, Kondivita Lane, Opp. Apana Dhaba, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 059.

Mr Narshi Mulji Shah Aged about 92 years, Occ. Business, 2702, 27^th Floor, Sunshine Infinity CHS Ltd. Sumantai Mhatre Road, Sewree Wadala, Scheme No.57, Wadala (W), Mumbai – 400 031.

… Petitioners

versus

Employees State Insurance Corporation (Through Social Security Officer) Having its regional office at 108, N M Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013.

The State of Maharashtra … Respondents

Mr Pravin Gaikwad a/w Mr Nahush Shah, for the petitioners. Ms Manisha R Tidke, APP, for respondent / State.

Page 1 of 3

17 January 2025

Mamta Kale

505-wp-2458-2024.docx

Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 17 January 2025

P.C.:

. Not on board. Taken on board.

Heard Mr Pravin Gaikwad, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and Ms Manisha Tidke, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.2/State.

The petitioners in this case are arraigned as accused in a private complaint filed by respondent No.1. The complaint led to issuance of process for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981.

The established legal principle is that this Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sparingly. Specifically, when the petitioners 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 petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, if the revision fails, the petitioners are not precluded from approaching this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Page 2 of 3

17 January 2025

Mamta Kale

505-wp-2458-2024.docx

In light of the above, this Court is not inclined to invoke its inherent jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed accordingly, but the petitioners are granted liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court. Furthermore, the petitioners 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.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(R.N. Laddha, J.)

Page 3 of 3

17 January 2025