Case Note & Summary
The State of Goa, through the Margao Police Station and Superintendent of Police, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa challenging an order dated 26.05.2015 passed under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). The respondent, Mr. Atish Mandrekar, an advocate, was the beneficiary of that order. During the hearing, the respondent's counsel pointed out that a Division Bench of the same court in Avinash Trimbakrao Dhondage v. The State of Maharashtra and anr. (Criminal Writ Petition No. 159 of 2014, decided on 21.10.2015) had held that an order under Section 156(3) CrPC is not an interlocutory order and therefore a revision petition is maintainable against it. The respondent further submitted that the petitioner had initially filed a revision before the Sessions Judge challenging the same order but withdrew it on the mistaken belief that revision was not maintainable based on a Single Judge's view. The court, considering the Division Bench's judgment, found that the petitioner had an efficacious alternate remedy by way of revision. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to file a revision petition before the appropriate forum within four weeks. The court also directed that if such a revision is filed, the Sessions Judge shall decide it on its own merits without being influenced by the withdrawal of the earlier revision. The judgment was delivered by Justices F. M. Reis and C. V. Bhadang on 1st December 2015.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Maintainability of Revision - Section 156(3) CrPC - Order under Section 156(3) CrPC is not an interlocutory order and revision is maintainable against it - The Division Bench in Avinash Trimbakrao Dhondage v. State of Maharashtra held that such an order can be challenged by revision - Consequently, the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition challenging an order under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is maintainable when an efficacious alternate remedy of revision is available.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to file a revision petition before the appropriate forum within four weeks from today. If such revision is filed, the Sessions Judge shall decide the same on its own merits without being influenced by the withdrawal of the earlier revision.
Law Points
- Alternate remedy
- Revision maintainability
- Section 156(3) CrPC
- Interlocutory order
- Writ jurisdiction
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (12) 135
Criminal Writ Petition No. 71 of 2015
F. M. Reis, C. V. Bhadang
Mr. Mahesh Amonkar (Addl. Public Prosecutor for petitioner), Mr. C. A. Ferreira (Advocate for respondent)
State of Goa, Through Margao Police Station, and Superintendent of Police, South Goa District, Margao Goa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition challenging an order under Section 156(3) CrPC.
Remedy Sought
The State of Goa sought to challenge the order dated 26.05.2015 passed under Section 156(3) CrPC.
Filing Reason
The petitioner believed that revision was not maintainable against the order under Section 156(3) CrPC and hence filed a writ petition.
Previous Decisions
The petitioner had initially filed a revision before the Sessions Judge challenging the same order but withdrew it on the assumption that revision would not lie based on a Single Judge's view.
Issues
Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an efficacious alternate remedy of revision is available against an order under Section 156(3) CrPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Respondent's counsel argued that a Division Bench judgment in Avinash Trimbakrao Dhondage v. State of Maharashtra held that revision is maintainable against an order under Section 156(3) CrPC as it is not an interlocutory order.
Respondent's counsel pointed out that the petitioner had withdrawn a revision earlier on the mistaken belief that it was not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi
An order under Section 156(3) CrPC is not an interlocutory order and therefore a revision petition is maintainable against it. Consequently, when an efficacious alternate remedy of revision is available, the writ petition is not maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
Considering the said judgment dated 21.10.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Avinash Trimbakrao Dhondage (supra), we find that the question of invoking writ jurisdiction when it is not disputed that the petitioners have an efficacious alternate remedy by filing a revision challenging the order dated 26.05.2015 passed under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Procedural History
The State of Goa filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 71 of 2015 challenging an order dated 26.05.2015 under Section 156(3) CrPC. The respondent pointed out that a Division Bench judgment dated 21.10.2015 in Avinash Trimbakrao Dhondage v. State of Maharashtra held that revision is maintainable against such orders. The petitioner had earlier filed a revision but withdrew it. The court dismissed the writ petition granting liberty to file a revision.
Acts & Sections
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: 156(3)
