Dinesh Shantilal Patel v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Writ Petition No. 1308 of 2025 Dr. Dinesh Shantilal Patel Age 75 years, Occupation : Service, R/at.: Chhaya North South Road No.5, 67 Swastik Society, Juhu Parle Dev. Scheme, Bombay - 400 056.

... Petitioner versus

1. The State of Maharashtra

2. M/s Okara Roadways (Regd.) Through its authorized officer Mr Sayaji Sawant Having its Registered office at Okara House, Plot No. 101, Sector 19-C, Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400 705.

... Respondents ---- Mr Gopalkrishna Shenoy a/w Mr Pawan Mali, for the Petitioner.

Mr Swapnil S Pednekar, APP, for the Respondent / State. ---- Digitally signed by MAMTA AMAR KALE Date:

2025.03.10 19:46:56 +0530 MAMTA AMAR KALE Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.

Date: 10 March 2025 P.C.:

.

Not on board. Taken on board.

2.

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent / State.

2.

The petitioner in this case is arraigned as an accused No.2 in a private complaint bearing CC No.2800108/SW/2019, pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. The complaint led to the issuance of process for offences punishable under Sections 418, 419, 420, 426, 465 and 468 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.

The well established legal principle dictates that inherent jurisdiction / writ jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly. This is particularly relevant when the applicant has option to challenge the issuance of a process order through the alternate and effective remedy such as filing revision before the Sessions Court. However, it is important to note that if the revision fails, the applicant is not barred from approaching this Court again for further relief. This ensures that the petitioner has multiple avenues for redress and can seek justice through the appropriate legal channels.

4.

Given the aforementioned circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise its writ jurisdiction. The application is

dismissed accordingly, however, the applicant is granted liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court. The applicant may seek condonation of any delay, if necessary, ensuring that all procedural requirements are met for a continued pursuit of justice. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the matter and all contentions of the parties are left open.

(R.N. Laddha, J.)