Ahmed Hussain Khan and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2025)

Ahmed Hussain Khan and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Statutory remedy reserved in favour of the Petitioners to file an Application for discharge before the trial Court, if so advised.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of CR No. 199 of 2024 registered with Versova Police Station, Mumbai, should be entertained/allowed. +1 more

Court's answer

Following the Supreme Court decision in Neeta Singh, since the chargesheet has been filed after completion of investigation, this Petition for quashing of the F.I.R. has become infructuous.

Ratio / Principle

Ordinarily the Court will not entertain a Petition under Article 226/227 where the Petitioner has an alternative remedy which, without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy; the High Court should direct the party to avail such remedy before resorting to the constitutional remedy.

Key takeaways

As the Police have filed the chargesheet, the Petitioners have a substantive alternate statutory remedy under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code / BNSS to file an Application for discharge before the trial Court.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, writ jurisdiction under Article 226) disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of CR No. 199 of 2024 dated 12.04.2024 registered with Versova Police Station, Mumbai, for offences under Sections 341, 427, 506, 504 read with 34 IPC and Sections 128, 129 & 194 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Holding, per the Supreme Court decision in Neeta Singh (SLP(C) No. 13578/2024, dt. 15.10.2024), that after filing of the chargesheet a petition for quashing of the FIR becomes infructuous, the Court found the Petition infructuous. Observing further that the Petitioners have a substantive alternate statutory remedy under the Criminal Procedure Code / BNSS to apply for discharge before the trial Court, and relying on the settled alternative-remedy doctrine (Thansingh Nathmal; A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu; Shalini Shyam Shetty; Radhey Shyam; Genpact India; Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai; Magadh Sugar), the Court disposed of the Petition, reserving the Petitioners' liberty to file a discharge application before the trial Court, if so advised.

Osk 72-Wp-2592-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 2592 OF 2024

Ahmed Hussain Khan & Ors.

… Petitioners

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

… Respondents

Mr. Viquar Rajguru a/w. Mr. Azeem Khan for Petitioners. Mr. Kiran C. Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State.

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND

DATE : 13^th June 2025.

P.C. :

Petitioners have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of CR No. 199 of 2024, dated 12^th April 2024, registered with Versova Police Station, Mumbai, for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 427, 506, 504 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 128, 129 & 194 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

At the outset, Mr. Shinde, learned A.P.P. on instructions submitted that, after completion of investigation of present crime, the police have filed chargesheet.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeta Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.

1/3

Osk 72-Wp-2592-2024.doc

13578/2024, dated 15/10/2024, has held that, after filing of chargesheet the Petition for quashing of F.I.R. becomes infructuous.

3.1) In view thereof, the Petition has become infructuous.

1. There is another facet to the present Petition.

As the Police have filed chargesheet, the Petitioners are having substantive alternate statutory remedy under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code / BNSS by way filing an Application for discharge before the trial Court.

It is the settled position of law and as has been decided in catena of decisions by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, ordinarily the Court will not entertain a Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, where the Petitioner has an alternative remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. Though no hurdle can be put against the exercise of the constitutional powers of the High Court, it is a well-recognized principle which gained judicial recognition that, the High Court should direct party to avail himself of such remedies, one or the other before he resorts to the constitutional remedy.

5.1) Reliance is placed on the following decisions :-

(i) Thansingh Nathmal Vs. The Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri & Ors., reported in AIR 1964 SC 1419.

(ii) A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs. S. Chellappan & Ors., reported in (2000) 7 SCC 695.

2/3

Osk 72-Wp-2592-2024.doc

(iii) Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329.

(iv) Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath & Ors., reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423.

(v) Genpact India Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax & Anr., reported in (2019) 419 ITR 440 (SC).

(vi) Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai & Ors. Vs. Tuticorin Educational Society & Ors., reported in (2019) 9 SCC 538.

(vii) Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 801.

The Petition is accordingly disposed off, by reserving the statutory remedy in favour of the Petitioners, to file an Application for discharge before the trial Court, if so advised.

( RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. )

Digitally signed by OMKAR SHIVAHAR OMKAR KUMBHAKARN SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN Date: 2025.06.18 11:27:38 +0530

3/3