Disposed¶28

Aniket Sanjay v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC30 Jan 2025WP/46/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court writ petition disposed of on alternative-remedy ground: Article 226 quashing of pending criminal case (RCC 222/2023, CR 255/2023, Niphad PS, offences u/ss 324, 323, 504, 506, 143, 149, 427 IPC) refused post-chargesheet; discharge application before trial Court held efficacious; relied on Thansingh Nathmal (AIR 1964 SC 1419), Venkatasubbiah Naidu ((2000) 7 SCC 695), Shalini Shyam Shetty ((2010) 8 SCC 329), Radhey Shyam ((2015) 5 SCC 423), Genpact ((2019) 419 ITR 440), Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal ((2019) 9 SCC 538), Magadh Sugar (2021 SCC OnLine SC 801).

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; Petition disposed of while reserving the remedy of filing an Application for discharge before the trial Court in favour of the Petitioner. ¶28

Aniket Sanjay vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; Petition disposed of while reserving the remedy of filing an Application for discharge before the trial Court in favour of the Petitioner.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the pending criminal case R.C.C. No. 222 of 2023 should be entertained, given that the chargesheet has been filed and the Petitioner has an alternate statutory remedy of filing a discharge application before the trial Court.

¶13

Court's answer

Since the chargesheet has been filed after completion of investigation, the Petitioner has a substantive alternate statutory remedy of filing an application for discharge before the trial Court.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

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; the party should be directed to avail such remedies before resorting to the constitutional remedy.

¶14

Key takeaways

Filing an application for discharge before the trial Court is not an onerous remedy but an equally efficacious one; the Petitioner cannot call upon the Court to adjudicate his innocence in a Petition under Article 226, nor can he make the statutory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure otious by directly approaching the High Court.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal writ jurisdiction / alternative remedy — Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of R.C.C. No. 222 of 2023 pending before JMFC, Niphad, arising out of C.R. No. 255 of 2023 dated 22.06.2023 registered at Niphad Police Station for offences under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506, 143, 149, 427 IPC — chargesheet already filed — Petitioner has a substantive alternate statutory remedy of a discharge application before the trial Court — settled position, relying on seven Supreme Court decisions (incl. Thansingh Nathmal, A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu, Radhey Shyam, Magadh Sugar), that the High Court ordinarily will not entertain an Article 226/227 petition where an equally efficacious alternative remedy, not unduly onerous, exists — a discharge application is neither onerous nor inefficacious, and innocence cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction nor CrPC provisions rendered otiose — Petition disposed of, discharge remedy reserved. (Bombay HC; judgment per A.S. Gadkari, J.; bench incl. R.S. Patil, J.)

¶1

Osk 1-Wp-46-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 46 OF 2025

¶5

	Mr. Aniket Sanjay Kumbharde	]
	Age : 20 years, Occu. Education,	]
	R/o. Village Nandurdi, Tal. Niphad,	]
	District Nashik.	]	… Petitioner
	V/s.
1.	The State of Maharashtra	]
	Through Niphad Police Station,	]
	Nashik Rural.	]
2.	Mr. Shashikant Balasaheb Khaire	]
	Age : 26 years, Occu. Mobile Shop,	]
	Residing at Village Nandurdi,	]
	Tal. Niphad, District Nashik.	]	… Respondents

¶6

Mr. Sachin Bhavar for Petitioner. Ms. Prajakta P. Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State. Ms. Iraa Dube Patil i/b. Jay & Co. for Respondent No.2.

¶7

JUDGMENT ( Per : A. S. GADKARI, J.) :-

¶8

By the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking quashing of R.C.C. No. 222 of 2023 pending

¶9

1/4

¶10

Osk 1-Wp-46-2025.doc

¶11

on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Niphad, District Nashik, arising out of CR No. 255 of 2023 dated 22nd June 2023, registered with Niphad Police Station, Nashik Rural, District Nashik, for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506, 143, 149, 427 of Indian Penal Code.

¶12

Heard Mr. Bhavar, learned Advocate for Petitioner, Ms. Shinde, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State and Ms. Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. Perused record.

¶13

It is an admitted fact on record that, after completion of investigation, the Investigating Agency has submitted chargesheet. In view thereof, the Petitioner is having substantive alternate statutory remedy by way of filing an application for discharge before the trial Court.

¶14

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.

¶15

2/4

¶16

Osk 1-Wp-46-2025.doc

¶17

4.1) Reliance is placed on the following decisions :

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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 the statutory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure otious, by directly approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶26

3/4

¶27

Osk 1-Wp-46-2025.doc

¶28

In view of the above and by reserving the remedy of filing an Application for discharge before the trial Court in favour of the Petitioner, Petition is disposed off.

¶29

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

¶30

Digitally signed by OMKAR SHIVAHAR OMKAR KUMBHAKARN SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN Date: 2025.06.27 18:41:56 +0530

¶31

4/4

Aniket Sanjay v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aniket Sanjay v. the 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vaibhav Vyankat Pawar vs the State of Maharashtra

Lilaben Manibhai Patel and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Balkrishna Ranvijay Jaiswal vs State of Maharashtra

Mehjabeen F Kadri vs State of Maharashtra

Aananda Yashvant Shinde vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Santosh Kashinath Padhi vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.