Dismissed¶42

Nilesh Phatak and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Feb 2025WP/2497/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC inherent jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly; alternative remedy of revision before Sessions Court; refusal to quash process issued in CC No.158/SW/2016, Metropolitan Magistrate 17th Court Borivali; offences under Sections 405, 406, 415, 417, 420, 463, 465 and 114 read with 120B IPC; petitions dismissed with liberty to approach Sessions Court and seek condonation of delay; failed revision no bar to fresh Section 482 petition; merits not examined, contentions open; Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 2495, 2497, 2805, 2806 of 2024; R.N. Laddha, J.; 10 February 2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court and to seek condonation of delay, if necessary. ¶42

Nilesh Phatak and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court and to seek condonation of delay, if necessary.

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC against the order of issuance of process when the petitioners have an alternative and effective remedy of filing a revision before the Sessions Court.

¶3

Court's answer

The inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly, particularly where the petitioners have an alternative and effective remedy such as filing a revision before the Sessions Court; in such cases the Court should refrain from entertaining an application/petition under Section 482 CrPC.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

If the revision before the Sessions Court fails, the petitioners are not barred from approaching this Court again under Section 482 CrPC for further relief.

¶3

Key takeaways

The Court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction and dismissed the petitions, granting the petitioners liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court and to seek condonation of delay, if necessary.ratio¶42
The Court has not examined the merits of the matter and all contentions of the parties are left open.obiter¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (R.N. Laddha, J., 10 February 2025) dismissed Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 2495, 2497, 2805 and 2806 of 2024 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by petitioners arraigned as accused in CC No.158/SW/2016 (Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Borivali, Mumbai), where process had been issued for offences punishable under Sections 405, 406, 415, 417, 420, 463, 465 and 114 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Holding that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly where the petitioners have an alternative and effective remedy, namely revision before the Sessions Court, the Court refrained from entertaining the petitions, granted liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court with liberty to seek condonation of delay if necessary, clarified that a failed revision does not bar a subsequent Section 482 petition, and expressly left the merits and all contentions open.

¶1

JM 17,18 ,20-wp-2495-24 & 2 ors.docx

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No. 2495 of 2024

¶4

Sanskruti Building No. 18 To 21 Chs Limited And Ors

¶5

… Petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

Ashok Kumar Gupta And Anr

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

And

¶10

Criminal Writ Petition No. 2497 of 2024

¶11

Nilesh Phatak And Ors

¶12

… Petitioners

¶13

versus

¶14

Ashok Kumar Gupta And Anr … Respondents

¶15

And

¶16

Criminal Writ Petition No. 2805 of 2024

¶17

Shreeja Purohit And Anr … Petitioners

¶18

versus

¶19

Ashok Kumar Gupta And Anr

¶20

… Respondents

¶21

And

¶22

Criminal Writ Petition No. 2806 of 2024

¶23

Ramesh J Sanghani … Petitioner

¶24

versus

¶25

Ashok Kumar Gupta And Anr … Respondents

¶26

Mr A Z Mookhtiar a/w Mr Bhushan Ove a/w V M Parkar, for the petitioners in all WPs.

¶27

Mr Swapnil Pednekar a/w Mr Arfan Sait, APP, for the respondent No.2/ State.

¶28

JYOTI RAJESH MANE

¶29

Digitally signed by JYOTI RAJESH MANE Date: 2025.02.14 10:24:37 +0530

¶30

Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 10 February 2025.

¶31

Page 1 of 3

¶32

10 February 2025

¶33

JM 17,18 ,20-wp-2495-24 & 2 ors.docx

¶34

P.C.:

¶35

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶36

The petitioners are arraigned as accused in CC No.158/SW/2016 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 17^th Court, Borivali, Mumbai. The complaint led to the issuance of process for offences punishable under Sections 405, 406, 415, 417, 420, 463, 465 and 114 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed the above petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶37

The established legal principle dictates that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should be exercised sparingly. This is particularly relevant when the petitioners have the option to challenge the order of issuance of process 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/petition under Section 482 of CrPC. However, it is important to note that if the revision fails, the petitioners are not barred from approaching this Court again under Section 482 CrPC for further relief. This ensures that the petitioners have multiple avenues for redress and can

¶38

Page 2 of 3

¶39

10 February 2025

¶40

JM 17,18 ,20-wp-2495-24 & 2 ors.docx

¶41

seek justice through the appropriate legal channels.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

(R.N. Laddha, J.)

¶45

Page 3 of 3

¶46

10 February 2025

Nilesh Phatak and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilesh Phatak and Anr. v. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dr Vinod Rameshwar Goyal and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra

Harsh Ambala Lohiya vs State of Maharashtra

Sushil Keshavrao Wghmare vs the State of Maharashtra

Maruti Vishvambhar Gavali vs State of Maharashtra

Vikas Dhondibhau Dhamale vs State of Maharashtra

Daji Pitambar Gadhire vs the State of Maharashtra