Case Note & Summary
The dispute originated from Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (the petitioner) filing an application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bandra, Mumbai, seeking direction to police to register an FIR. The Magistrate rejected this application through an order dated 22.07.2024. The petitioner then approached the High Court through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, challenging the Magistrate's order and seeking its quashing with direction to register FIR. The core legal issue was whether the writ petition was maintainable when an alternate remedy of criminal revision under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code was available. The respondent-State objected to maintainability, arguing the impugned order was revisable and the petitioner should first approach the Sessions Court. The petitioner's counsel acknowledged the order under Section 156(3) was final but argued the order was palpably erroneous and perverse, warranting High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction. He cited Supreme Court decisions in Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited and Prabhu Chawla, and a Division Bench decision in Mrs. Mamta Digvijay Singh. The State's counsel maintained revision was an efficacious alternate remedy where all issues could be considered. The court analyzed the precedent in Bipasha Deepak Kumar v. State of Maharashtra, where it was held that an order under Section 156(3) CrPC is final and revisable under Section 397 CrPC. The court noted the petitioner had earlier approached the High Court through another writ petition which was disposed of with liberty to approach appropriate forum, and Special Leave Petition against that order was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The court reasoned that since an effective alternate remedy was available through criminal revision before the Sessions Court, the writ petition was not maintainable. The court dismissed the petition and relegated the petitioner to exhaust the remedy of revision, while granting liberty to exclude time spent in the present petition if revision was filed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Alternate Remedy - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 and Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 - Petitioner filed writ petition challenging Magistrate's order rejecting application under Section 156(3) CrPC - Respondent-State objected that order was revisable under Section 397 CrPC and petitioner should first approach Sessions Court - Court held that writ petition not maintainable as efficacious alternate remedy of revision available - Petitioner relegated to file criminal revision application before Sessions Court (Paras 2-10, 15-18). B) Criminal Procedure - Nature of Order Under Section 156(3) - Final Order Subject to Revision - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 156(3) and Section 397 - Magistrate rejected application under Section 156(3) CrPC - Court followed precedent in Bipasha Deepak Kumar case which held such order is final order against which criminal revision is maintainable under Section 397 CrPC - Petitioner fairly conceded order terminates proceeding before Magistrate - Held that impugned order can be examined by Sessions Court under revisional jurisdiction (Paras 4-5, 15).
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is maintainable when an alternate remedy of criminal revision under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code is available against the Magistrate's order rejecting application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable. The court held that an efficacious alternate remedy of criminal revision under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code is available to the petitioner against the Magistrate's order rejecting application under Section 156(3). The petitioner was relegated to file criminal revision application before the Sessions Court. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to exclude time spent in the present petition if revision is filed.
