Anup Pillai v. Atul Maheshchandra Bisaria And ORS

4 Wp-4340-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4340 OF 2025 Anup Pillai

...Petitioner

Vs.

Atul Maheshchandra Bisaria and Ors.

...Respondents

***** Adv. Shubham Yadav i/by Pankaj Purway Advocate for the Petitioner Ms. Gauri S. Rao APP for the Respondent-State API Chetan Pacherwal Unit 6,EOW, Mumbai.

***** CORAM :

S. M. MODAK, J.

DATE :

13th AUGUST 2025 P. C. :- 1.

Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner-accused. He is facing prosecution for an offence punishable under Sections 465, 466, 467, 471, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 43, 66(c)(d) of the Information Technology Act.

2.

According to him, there are no materials to frame the charge and that is why he applied for discharge. It was rejected by the Court of the by SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR Date:

2025.08.18 11:39:49 +0530 SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR Seema 1/2

4 Wp-4340-2025.doc then Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade Court, Mumbai vide order dated 29.01.2025, page no. 45. There is a challenge to the said order. In fact as per the provisions of Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code such orders are revisable either by Sessions Court or by the High Court. The jurisdiction of both the Court is co-extensive. If this Court will hold that the order of the discharge is proper, there is no alternative available before the Petitioner to go before the Sessions Court. He prayed for withdrawal of this petition and ask for leave to approach the Sessions Court.

3.

In view of that this petition is disposed of as withdrawn. Liberty granted to the Petitioner to approach the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai. Delay, if any, caused in filing revision application may be condoned by the Sessions Court on filing of the necessary application.

[S. M. MODAK, J.] Seema 2/2