Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two criminal applications filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of complaints filed by the respective second respondents under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The learned Magistrate had issued process in both complaints. The applicants, including Bharat S. Dahanukar and Haresh H. Java, approached the High Court directly under Section 482 CrPC for quashing. The court considered the preliminary issue of maintainability, noting that the applicants had an alternative remedy available by way of a revision application under Section 397 of the CrPC against the order issuing process. The court observed that the existence of such an alternative remedy is a relevant consideration and that the applicants should first exhaust the remedy of revision before invoking the inherent powers under Section 482. Consequently, the court dismissed both applications as not maintainable, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the complaints.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of Process - Section 482 CrPC - Alternative Remedy - When a revision application under Section 397 of CrPC is available against an order issuing process, a petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the complaint should not be entertained. The Court held that the existence of an alternative remedy is a relevant factor and the applicants must first exhaust the remedy of revision. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of complaints under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be entertained when a remedy of revision under Section 397 of the CrPC is available to the applicants.
Final Decision
Both Criminal Application No.38 of 2006 and Criminal Application No.39 of 2006 are dismissed as not maintainable, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the complaints.
Law Points
- Availability of alternative remedy under Section 397 CrPC
- Quashing of process under Section 482 CrPC
- Maintainability of Section 482 petition when revision lies
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (12) 121
Criminal Application No.38 of 2006 and Criminal Application No.39 of 2006
Shri Subhash Jha i/by M/s. Law Global & Associates for the Applicants; Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the State
Bharat S. Dahanukar (in both applications) and Haresh H. Java (in Criminal Application No.39 of 2006)
The State of Maharashtra and M/s. The Federal Bank Limited (in Criminal Application No.38 of 2006); The State of Maharashtra and M/s. Hindustan Construction Co., Limited (in Criminal Application No.39 of 2006)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of complaints filed under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the complaints and the process issued by the learned Magistrate.
Filing Reason
The applicants sought to quash the complaints on grounds not specified in the excerpt, but the court considered the preliminary issue of maintainability due to availability of revision remedy.
Previous Decisions
The learned Magistrate had issued process in both complaints.
Issues
Whether an application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable when a revision application under Section 397 CrPC is available.
Submissions/Arguments
Not mentioned in the provided text.
Ratio Decidendi
When a revision application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is available against an order issuing process, a petition under Section 482 of the same Code for quashing of the complaint should not be entertained, as the existence of an alternative remedy is a relevant factor.
Judgment Excerpts
The question is whether these Applications can be entertained when a remedy available to the Applicants to prefer a Revision Application under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for challenging the order issuing process.
Procedural History
The complaints were filed by the second respondents under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The learned Magistrate issued process. The applicants then filed the present applications under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the complaints and the process.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 397, Section 482
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Section 138, Section 141
