Rakesh Shyam Singh vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

Rakesh Shyam Singh vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; petition disposed of while reserving the petitioner's remedy to file an application for discharge before the trial Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of a pending criminal case (post-filing of charge-sheet) ought to be entertained when the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of applying for discharge before the trial Court.

Court's answer

Since the charge-sheet has been filed after completion of investigation, the petitioners have a substantive alternate remedy of filing an application for discharge before the trial Court.

Ratio / Principle

Following catena of Supreme Court decisions, 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

An application for discharge before the trial Court is neither onerous nor less than equally efficacious; the petitioner cannot require the High Court to adjudicate his innocence in an Article 226 petition, nor render the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita otiose by directly approaching the High Court.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of C.C. No. 6102203/PW/2023 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 61st Court, Kurla, arising out of FIR No. 197 of 2023 (Govandi Police Station), re-numbered as EOW C.R. No. 09 of 2024, for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Held, relying on seven Supreme Court decisions (including Thansingh Nathmal, A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu, Shalini Shyam Shetty, Radhey Shyam, Genpact India, Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and Magadh Sugar), that since the charge-sheet stands filed, the petitioner has a substantive, non-onerous and equally efficacious alternate remedy of applying for discharge before the trial Court; the High Court will ordinarily decline to adjudicate innocence in an Article 226 petition and will not permit the CrPC/BNSS provisions to be made otiose. Petition disposed of reserving the discharge-application remedy.

bipin prithiani

55-wp-2714.24.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2714 OF 2024

Rakesh Shyam Singh … Petitioner

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

Mr. Abhinav Chandrachud a/w Mr. Janay Jain and Ms. Samruddhi Bendbhar i/by Parinam Law Associates for Petitioner. Mr. Vinod Chate, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State.

Ms. Carina Xavier a/w Mr. Jay N. Suryavanshi and Mr. Raj Ambekar i/by Mr. Rahul S. Arote for Respondent No.2. Mr. Pradip Sawant, Sr.P.I., Unit-VI, EOW, Mumbai.

P.C.:-

Present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

is filed for quashing of C.C. No. 6102203/PW/2023 pending on the file of

Metropolitan Magistrate, 61st Court, Kurla, Mumbai, arising out of FIR No. 197 of 2023 dated 14th May 2023, registered with Govandi Police Station, Mumbai and subsequently investigated by the Economic Offences Wing, Unit-VI, Mumbai, bearing EOW C.R. No. 09 of 2024, under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

1/3

bipin prithiani 55-wp-2714.24.doc

It is an admitted fact on record that, after completion of investigation, the Investigating Agency has filed charge-sheet. In view thereof, the Petitioners are having substantive alternate remedy by way of 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 the 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 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.

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.

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).

2/3

bipin prithiani 55-wp-2714.24.doc

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.

According to us, filing an Application for discharge before the trial Court is not an onerous remedy and in fact an equally efficacious remedy. The Petitioner cannot be permitted to raise a specious plea calling upon this Court to adjudicate his innocence in a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is against the settled principles of law. At the same time, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to make these statutory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita otiose, by directly approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

1. In view of the above and by reserving the remedy in favour of

the Petitioner of filing an Application for discharge before the trial Court, Petition is disposed off.

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

BIPIN Digitally signed byBIPIN DHARMENDER DHARMENDER PRITHIANI PRITHIANI Date: 2025.08.0511:04:48 +0530

3/3