Lilaben Manibhai Patel And ANR. v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR.

ssm 1 19-wp66.2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 66 OF 2025 Lilaben Manibhai Patel & Anr.

.....Petitioners Vs.

The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

.....Respondents _____________________________________ Ms. Dimple Shah a/w Adv. Bharat Jain and Adv. Hrishikesh Tajane i/by IC Legal for the Petitioners.

Smt. Prajakta P. Shinde APP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. C.K. Pendse a/w Adv. Prashant D. Jadhav and Adv. Madhusmita Sahoo for the Respondent No.2.

_____________________________________ CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 3rd JULY, 2025.

P.C.:- 1) Mr. Pendse, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 on instructions submitted that, the Petitioners have already availed alternate remedy by way of filing an Application for discharge before the trial Court. 2) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Bombay Vs. Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. & Ors. reported in (1995) 1 SCC 642, has held that, where there is not only the existence of an alternative remedy but the writ petitioner actually had availed of that remedy, the writ petition should not 1/2

ssm 2 19-wp66.2025.doc have been entertained.

3) As the Petitioners have already availed an alternate remedy of filing an Application for discharge, we are not inclined to entertain the Petition and is accordingly dismissed in limine. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.) by SANJIV SHARNAPPA MASHALKAR Date:

2025.07.18 18:09:09 +0530 SANJIV SHARNAPPA MASHALKAR 2/2