Dismissed¶19

Dr Prerana Rajendra Aher@Prerna Tukaran Patil and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Jan 2025WP/600/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Cri.Writ Petition No.600 of 2025, R.N. Laddha J., 23 January 2025; writ jurisdiction vs alternative efficacious remedy; inherent jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly; issuance of process; private complaint; Section 500 IPC; Sessions Court remedy; condonation of delay; contentions kept open; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed without examining merits; liberty granted to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court and to seek condonation of delay, if any; all contentions kept open. ¶19

Dr Prerana Rajendra Aher@Prerna Tukaran Patil and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should entertain its writ jurisdiction when the petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy before the Sessions Court to challenge the issuance of process order.

¶18

Court's answer

It is a well-established principle that the Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction sparingly.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Where the petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy to challenge the issuance of process order before the Sessions Court, the High Court should refrain from entertaining the writ jurisdiction; however, if the proceedings before the Sessions Court fail, the petitioners are not barred from approaching this Court under its writ jurisdiction.

¶18

Key takeaways

The Court declined to invoke its writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition, granting liberty to the petitioners to pursue the remedy before the Sessions Court.ratio¶19
Liberty was expressly granted to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court and to seek condonation of delay, if any.ratio¶22
The Court clarified that it has not examined the merits of the matter and all contentions of the parties are kept open.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition challenging issuance of process in a private complaint for an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC: Dismissed at the threshold. Held that inherent/writ jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly, and where petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy before the Sessions Court to challenge the issuance of process order, the High Court should refrain from entertaining the writ petition. Liberty granted to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court, with liberty to seek condonation of delay; failure there does not bar approaching the High Court under writ jurisdiction. Merits not examined; all contentions kept open.

¶1

Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAYSONAWANE SANJAYSONAWANE Date:2025.01.23 19:26:25 +0530

¶2

Chitra Sonawane 902-WP-600-2025.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Cri.Writ Petition No.600 of 2025

¶5

Dr Prerana Rajendra Aher @ Prerana Tukaram Patil Age about 36 years, Occ.Doctor, R/at 59, Shivram Nagar, Basmat Road, Bhind Agrawal Mangal Karyalaya, Parbhani.

¶6

Dr Pravin Tukaram Patil AGe about 42 years, Occ.Radiologist, R/at. C/o. Prerana Tukaram Patil, 59, Shivram NAgar, Basmat Road, Bhind Agrawal Mangal Karyalaya, Parbhani. ...

¶7

... Petitioners/Accused.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra Through PSO Panchvati Nashik... Respondent No.1.

¶10

Dr Rajendra Bahusaheb Aher, Age about 42 years, Occ: Doctor, R/at. 8, Sayali Heights A, Radha Nagar, Makhmalabad Road, Nashik. ... Respondent No.2/ Original Complainant

¶11

Mr Jaydeep Deo for the petitioners. Mr Yogesh Y Dabke, APP for the respondent/State. None for respondent No.2.

¶12

Page No. 1 of 3 ____________________________________________ 23 January 2025

¶13

Chitra Sonawane 902-WP-600-2025.doc

¶14

Coram : R.N.Laddha, J. Date : 23 January 2025.

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

¶17

The petitioners in this petition are arraigned as accused in a private complaint filed by respondent No.2. The complaint led to the issuance of process for an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

It is a well-established principle of law that the Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction sparingly. Specifically, when the petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy to challenge the issuance of process order before the Sessions Court, this Court should refrain from entertaining the writ jurisdiction. However, if the revision before the Sessions Court fails, the petitioners are not barred from approaching this Court under its writ jurisdiction.

¶19

In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to invoke the writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed but liberty is granted to the petitioners to file

¶20

Page No. 2 of 3 ____________________________________________ 23 January 2025

¶21

Chitra Sonawane 902-WP-600-2025.doc

¶22

appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court. Furthermore, the petitioners may seek condonation of delay, if any.

¶23