Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ASHWIN D.BHOBE
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
1. Heard Mr. Subhash Jha, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Tanveer Khan, learned APP for the Respondent/State.
2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenges the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 71, Bandra, Mumbai (hereafter “Magistrate”), whereby an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereafter “Cr.P.C.”) was rejected (hereafter “impugned order”).
3. The reliefs sought by the Petitioner in this Petition are as follows:-
“(a) By issue of the Writ of Direction and/or Writ of Mandamus and/or such Writ and/or order in the nature of the Writ by exercising inherent and extra ordinary powers of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and set aside the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 passed by Ld. Judicial magistrate first class 71th court Bandra Mumbai in Misc. Case 256 of 2023 and direct to the Respondent No.2 to take cognizance of offences against the Accused person by registering the FIR.
(b) Cost of this P
Magistrate's rejection of Section 156(3) CrPC application is final order, revisable under Section 397 CrPC before Sessions Court; writ under Article 226 not entertained due to efficacious alternate r....
The court emphasized the procedural propriety requiring litigants to first approach subordinate courts before the High Court unless exceptional circumstances justify bypassing this route.
Revision under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. not maintainable against the revisionary order of the Sessions Judge - No grounds for exercise of inherent power by this Court unde....
Proposed accused must be heard in revision against Magistrate's rejection of Section 156(3) CrPC application; no prejudicial order without opportunity under Section 401(2), applicable to Sessions Jud....
An order under section 205 of the Code refusing the application for dispensing with personal appearance of the accused is an interlocutory order and while so a revision against that order is barred u....
The interpretation of 'interlocutory order' and its applicability to the case, as well as the scope of criminal revision petition and the nature of orders that can be revised.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
