Dismissed¶J4

Dilip Jayantilal Thakkar v. Nita Shyam Rathi and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Jan 2025WP/5264/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. inherent jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly; alternate effective remedy of revision before Sessions Court against issuance of process; Section 138 NI Act private complaint; process order challenge declined; liberty to approach Sessions Court and seek condonation of delay; merits left open; Dilip Jayantilal Thakkar v. Jignesh Vinod Mehta and Nita Shyam Rathi; Bombay High Court; R.N. Laddha, J.; 17 January 2025; WP 4962/2024 and WP 5264/2024; dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court, including seeking condonation of any delay; the Court expressly did not examine the merits and all contentions of the parties were left open. ¶J4

Dilip Jayantilal Thakkar vs Nita Shyam Rathi and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶J4

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the issuance of process when the petitioner has an alternate and effective remedy of revision before the Sessions Court.

¶J3

Court's answer

This Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sparingly.

¶J3

Ratio / Principle

Where the petitioner has an alternate and effective remedy of revision before the Sessions Court to challenge the issuance of a process order, this Court should refrain from entertaining a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶J3

Key takeaways

If the revision before the Sessions Court fails, the petitioner is not precluded from approaching this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.ratio¶J3
The Court declined to invoke its inherent jurisdiction and dismissed both petitions, granting 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¶J4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), R.N. Laddha, J., 17 January 2025 — Writ Petition No. 4962 of 2024 and Writ Petition No. 5264 of 2024 (common petitioner, Dilip Jayantilal Thakkar): The petitioner, arraigned as an accused on process issued in private complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 (as printed), approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Held: the Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly; where the petitioner has an alternate and effective remedy of revision before the Sessions Court against the order issuing process, the Court should refrain from entertaining the Section 482 petition; if the revision fails, the petitioner is not precluded from thereafter approaching the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Both petitions dismissed with liberty to institute appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court and to seek condonation of delay; merits not examined and all contentions left open.

¶1

Mamta Kale

¶2

11-wp-4962-2024 @ 12wp-5264-2024.docx

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Writ Petition No. 4962 of 2024

¶5

Dilip Jayantilal Thakkar Adult, Indian Inhabitant, Aged 87 years, Having Office situate at 111/A, 1^st Floor, Karimji Building, M G Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

Jignesh Vinod Mehta

¶9

Adult, Indian Inhabitant, Occ. Business, L-401, Ashok Nagar, Bldg. No.4 CHSL, Baburao Paranjape Road, Vazira Naka, Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400 092.

¶10

The State of Maharashtra Through Government Pleader High Court, Bombay.

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition No. 5264 of 2024

¶13

Dilip Jayantilal Thakkar Adult, Indian Inhabitant, Aged 87 years, Having Office situate at 111/A, 1^st Floor, Karimji Building, M G Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. … Petitioner

¶14

MAMTAAMARKALE Digitallysigned byMAMTAAMARKALEDate:2025.01.1719:54:42+0530

¶15

versus

¶16

Nita Shyam Rathi

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

17 January 2025

¶19

Mamta Kale 11-wp-4962-2024 @ 12wp-5264-2024.docx

¶20

Adult, Indian Inhabitant, C-1502, Ajmera Pristine, Yogi Nagar, Borivali West, Mumbai – 400 091.

¶21

The State of Maharashtra Through Government Pleader, High Court, Bombay. … Respondents

¶22

Mr Darshan Juikar a/w Mr Nirav Barot i/b Maneksha & Sethna, for the Petitioner in both petitions.

¶23

Mr M G Patil, APP, for respondent / State in WP/4962/2024. Mr Swapnil S Pednekar, APP, for respondent / State in WP/5264/2024.

¶24

Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 17 January 2025

¶25

P.C.:

¶26

. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

The petitioner in this case is arraigned as an accused in a private complaint filed by respondent No.1. The complaint led to issuance of process for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981.

¶28

The established legal principle is that this Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Page 2 of 3

17 January 2025

Mamta Kale

11-wp-4962-2024 @ 12wp-5264-2024.docx

¶33

sparingly. Specifically, when the petitioner has the option to challenge the issuance of a process order through the alternate and effective remedy of revision before the Sessions Court, this Court should refrain from entertaining petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, if the revision fails, the petitioner is not precluded from approaching this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶34

In light of the above, this Court is not inclined to invoke its inherent jurisdiction. The petitions are dismissed accordingly, but the petitioner is granted liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court. Furthermore, the petitioner may seek condonation of any delay. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the matters, and all contentions of the parties are left open.

¶35

Both petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

¶36

(R.N. Laddha, J.)

¶37

Page 3 of 3

¶38

17 January 2025

Dilip Jayantilal Thakkar v. Nita Shyam Rathi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Jayantilal Thakkar v. Nita Shyam Rathi 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

Similar cases

Tanaji Lakshaman Gunjal vs the State of Maharashtra

Kriti Mittal and Ors. vs at Trade Overseas Private Limited through Mr Adarsh Gupta and Anr.

Nandu Gyanu Dhobale vs Gopal Govind Vibhute and Anr.

Tanaji Lakshaman Gunjal vs the State of Maharashtra

Aarti Rajkumar Basantani vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dilip Jayantilal Thakkar vs Jignesh Vinod Mehta and Anr.