Challagundla Nageswara Rao v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

SMITA JOHNSON GONSALVES JOHNSON GONSALVES Date: 2024.04.04 10:21:08 +0530 sg 1/2 28.apl352-24.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.352 OF 2024 Challagundla Nageswara Rao ..

Applicant v/s.

The State of Maharashtra And Anr.

..

Respondents ....

Mr Shubham Mhatre, for the Applicant.

Mr Kiran C. Shinde, APP, for Respondent State. ....

CORAM : R.N. LADDHA, J.

DATE : 3 APRIL 2024 P.C. :

.

Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant.

2.

The applicant in this case is arraigned as accused in a private complaint filed by the respondent No.2. The complaint led to the issuance of process for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

3.

The established legal principle is that this Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sparingly. Specifically, when the applicant has the option to challenge the

sg 2/2 28.apl352-24.doc issuance of a process order through the alternate and effective remedy of revision before the Sessions Court. In light of the above, this Court is not inclined to invoke its inherent jurisdiction. The application is dismissed accordingly, but the applicant is granted liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court. Furthermore, the applicant may seek condonation of any delay. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the matter, and all contentions raised by the parties remain open.

(R.N. LADDHA, J.)