1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE

Criminal Writ Petition No.1933 of 2007

Surajbhan Oils Ltd. & ors.

Petitioners

Vs.

The State Trading Corporation of

India Ltd. & anr.

Respondents

With

Criminal Writ Petition No.1934 of 2007

Vishnu Oil & Vanaspati Industries

Limited & ors.

Petitioners

Vs.

The State Trading Corporation of

India Ltd. & anr.

Respondents

With

Criminal Writ Petition No.1935 of 2007

Ved Prakash Goyal

Petitioner

Vs.

The State Trading Corporation of

India Ltd. & anr.

Respondents

Mr.Rajendra R.Mishra for petitioners.

Mr.S.R.Shinde, APP in W.P.1933/07.

Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP in W.P.1934/07.

Mr.D.P.Adsule, APP in W.P.1935/07.

CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.

October 17, 2007.

P.C.

.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

The

relief

sought

for

in

these

three

petitions

is

2

similar

viz.

to

quash

the

proceedings

in

three

different

criminal

cases

i.e.

C.C.

No.

1812/SS/2006,

C.C.No.1810/SS/2006

and

C.C.

No.

1711/SS/2006.

All

these

applications

have

been

re-registered

again

in

the

year

2007.

It

is

contended

that

the

complaints

have

been

filed

without

any

cause

of

action

and

they

are

frivolous

complaints.

It

has

also

been

pointed

out

that

the

Respondent

no.1

has

filed

Arbitration

Petition

bearing No.268 of 2007 for the recovery of

Rs.12,40,15,385/-.

.

As has been held in the case of V.K. Jain &

ors.

Vs.

Pratap

V.

Padode

[2005

(3)

Mh.L.J.

778]

[2005

(3)

Mh.L.J.

778]

[2005

(3)

Mh.L.J.

778],

the

petitioners

have

alternative

and

equally

efficacious

remedy

of

challenging

the

order

of

issuance

of

process

before

the

Sessions

Court

by

filing

a

revision

application

under

Section

397

of

Cr.P.C.

and

all

the

grounds

raised

in

these

applications

can

be

considered

by

the

Sessions

Court.

The

learned

counsel

for

the

petitioners

submitted

that

he

has

invoked

Article

227

of

the

Constitution

also.

It

is

well

settled

that

when

a

statutory

remedy

is

available,

a

writ

petition

under

Article

227

of

the

Constitution

need

not

be

entertained

as

3

has

been

held

by

the

Apex

Court

in

the

case

of

Sadhana

Lodh

Vs.

National

Insurance

Co.

Ltd.

&

anr.

[(2003)

3

SCC

24]

[(2003)

3

SCC

24]

[(2003)

3

SCC

24].

In

relegating

the

petitioners

to

the

alternative

remedy

of

criminal

revision

applications

before

seeking

to

invoke

the

the

inherent

powers

under

Section

482

of

Cr.P.C.,

I

am

also

supported

by

a

three-Judge

Bench

judgment

in

the case of Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra

[AIR

[AIR

[AIR 1978 SC 47].

1978 SC 47].

1978 SC 47].

.

The petitions are, therefore, disposed off

with liberty to approach the Sessions Court.

.

Certified copy is expedited.

(B.H.MARL