Smita Sudhir Patil and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smita Sudhir Patil and Ors. vs the 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, with liberty to seek condonation of any delay; the merits were not examined and all contentions of the parties were left open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the process issued on the private complaint, when the petitioners have an alternate and effective remedy of revision before the Sessions Court.

Court's answer

This Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sparingly; where the petitioners have the alternate and effective remedy of a revision before the Sessions Court, the Court should refrain from entertaining an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Ratio / Principle

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

Key takeaways

The Court declined to invoke its inherent jurisdiction and disposed of the petition, granting the petitioners liberty 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.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (R.N. Laddha, J.) declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a Criminal Writ Petition filed by three accused against whom process had been issued on a private complaint for offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Holding that where petitioners possess an alternate and effective remedy of revision before the Sessions Court, the Court should refrain from entertaining a Section 482 application, the Court disposed of the petition with liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court and to seek condonation of any delay. If the revision fails, the petitioners are not barred from approaching the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The merits were not examined and all contentions were left open.

SMITA Digitally signed by SMITA JOHNSON JOHNSON GONSALVESDate: 2025.01.21 GONSALVES 00:42:49 +0530

503.wp2695-24.docx

sg

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Writ Petition No.2695 of 2024

Smita Sudhir Patil Age - 57 years, Occu- Homemaker R/o. Flat No.9, Hiranyakeshi Apartment, Surve Colony, Tarabai Park,

Kolhapur - 416 003 (Maharashtra)

1. Samarjeet Sudhir Patil

Age -33 years, Occu - Business R/o. Flat No.9, Hiranyakeshi Apartment, Surve Colony, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur - 416 002 (Maharashtra)

Harshjeet Sudhir Patil Age-35 years, Occu-Service R/o. Flat No.9, Hiranyakeshi Apartment, Surve Colony, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur - 416 003 (Maharashtra) … Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra

Suvarna Subhash Durge Age-55 years, Occu- Agriculture R/o.58, Shivaji Housing Society, Rajarampuri 12^th Lane Kolhapur … Respondents

Mr Tushar Sonawane, a/w. Mr Piyush Toshnival and Ms Pooja Satpute, i/b. Gaurav Nankar, for the petitioners. Ms Sangita E Phad, APP, for respondent No.1/ State.

Page 1 of 3

20 January 2025

503.wp2695-24.docx

sg

Mr Akash Murudkar, i/b. Manoj A Patil, for respondent No.2.

Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 20 January 2025.

P.C.:

. Not on board. Taken on board.

Heard Mr Tushar Sonawane, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Ms Sangita E Phad, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1/State; and Mr Akash Murudkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

The petitioners 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 Sections 465, 467, 468 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code.

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 alternate and effective remedy of a 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

Page 2 of 3

20 January 2025

503.wp2695-24.docx

sg

petitioners are not barred from approaching this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

In light of the above, this Court is not inclined to invoke its inherent jurisdiction. The petition is disposed of 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.

Page 3 of 3

20 January 2025