Dismissed¶19

Jindal Drugs Private Limited through Aditya Khetan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Jan 2025WP/5859/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court (R.N. Laddha, J.), Cri.Writ Petition No.5859 of 2024, decided 22 January 2025: petition by Jindal Drugs Private Limited (versus the State of Maharashtra and Vijay Shrikrishan Jindal) dismissed; the Court declined to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC because the petitioner had an alternative and effective remedy of filing a revision before the Sessions Court against the issuance of process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in a private complaint filed by respondent No.2; liberty granted to approach the Sessions Court and seek condonation of delay; merits not examined, contentions kept open.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court, with liberty to seek condonation of delay, if any. ¶19

Jindal Drugs Private Limited through Aditya Khetan vs State… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court, with liberty to seek condonation of delay, if any.

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC when the petitioner has an alternative and effective remedy of filing a revision before the Sessions Court to challenge the process issuance order.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC sparingly, specifically where the petitioner has an alternative and effective remedy of filing a revision before the Sessions Court to challenge the process issuance order; accordingly, the Court declined to invoke its inherent jurisdiction.

¶18

Key takeaways

Dismissal of the petition leaves the petitioner free to approach this Court under Section 482 CrPC if the revision before the Sessions Court fails.ratio¶18
The Court did not examine the merits of the matter; all contentions of the parties were kept open.obiter¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cri.Writ Petition No.5859 of 2024, decided 22 January 2025 (R.N. Laddha, J.): The petitioner company, arraigned as an accused in a private complaint filed by respondent No.2, which had led to issuance of process for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, sought the exercise of the Court's inherent jurisdiction. Held, dismissing the petition: the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC sparingly, specifically where the petitioner has an alternative and effective remedy of filing a revision before the Sessions Court to challenge the process issuance order. If the revision fails, the petitioner is not precluded from approaching the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. The petitioner was granted liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court and to seek condonation of delay, if any. The Court expressly did not examine the merits and kept all contentions of the parties open.

¶1

Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY SANJAY SONAWANE SONAWANE Date: 2025.01.22 23:42:23 Chitra Sonawane +0530 903-WP-5859-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Cri.Writ Petition No.5859 of 2024

¶4

Jindal Drugs Private Limited through authorised representative Aditya Khetan, a private limited company, having its registered office at 12A, 12^th floor, Bakhtawar building, 229, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021

¶5

… Petitioner.

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Mumbai

¶8

Vijay Shrikrishan Jindal, aged about 62 years, residing at Tahnee Heights Coop.Hsg Society Ltd, Flat No.174, 17 floor, Petit Hall, D building, 66, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai400006. …. Respondents.

¶9

Ms Fereshte Sethna a/w Mr Ameya Pant, Coral Shah i/by DMD Advocates for the petitioner.

¶10

Ms MR Tidke, APP for respondent No.1/State.

¶11

Mr Aabad Ponda, Sr.Advocate a/w Ms Shachi Udeshi, Mr Sujith Mavi i/by Wadia Ghandy & Co. for respondent No.2.

¶12

Page No. 1 of 3 ____________________________________________ 22 January 2025

¶13

Chitra Sonawane 903-WP-5859-2024.doc

¶14

Coram : R.N.Laddha, J. Date : 22 January 2025.

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶17

The petitioner in this petition, has been arraigned as an accused in a private complaint filed by respondent No.2. The complaint led to issuance of process for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (‘NI Act’), 1881.

¶18

The established legal principle is that this Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 sparingly, specifically when the petitioner has alternative and effective remedy of filing a revision before the Sessions Court to challenge the process issuance order. In these circumstnces, this Court is not inclined to invoke its inherent jurisdiction, however, if the revision fails, the petitioner is not precluded from approaching this Court under Section 482 CrPC.

¶19

In light of the above, this Court is not inclined to invoke the inherent jurisdiction. The petition stand dismissed. The petitioner is granted liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court.

¶20

Page No. 2 of 3 ____________________________________________ 22 January 2025

¶21

Chitra Sonawane 903-WP-5859-2024.doc

¶22

Furthermore, the petitioner may seek condonation of delay, if any.

¶23