Courts should not entertain petitions challenging convictions when effective alternative remedies are available.

ORAL ORDER

[1.0] By way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the BNSS , the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

“(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to alter / amend / modify the Arrest Warrant as stipulated under condition No.3 in the order dated 05.03.2025 vide CC No.79951/2021 be pleased to amend /

alter / modify the said condition to Bailable Warrant;”

[2.0] Having heard learned advocate for the respective parties and perusing the record it appears that the petitioner has directly approached this Court challenging the judgment and order of conviction without resorting to the alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is convicted on 05.03.2025 and petitioner has has directly approached this Court by way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the BNSS and has filed the present petition on 18.07.2025, without availing statutory remedy and hence, as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of Bhoomi Exim & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (SCR.A/12711/2023, dtd. 07.10.2023); Arun Shankar Shukla Vs. State of U.P & Ors, reported in

1999 (6) SCC 146 and Hamida Vs. Rashid alias Rasheed and Ors. reported in (2008) 1 SCC 474, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hamida (Supra) has been pleased to observe in Head-note B as under:

“B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S.482 – Inherent powers of High Court – Scope – Limits of – Alternative remedy – Availability of – Effect – Held, has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in rare cases and that too to correct patent illegalities or when some miscarriage of justice is done – Practice of High Courts in entertaining petitions under S.482, when there was an effective alternative remedy available, deprecated – Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under S.482 CrPC at an interlocutory stage which are often filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure, as in the instant case, or to delay the trial which enable the accused to win over the witnesses by money or muscle power or they may become disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriage of justice (paras 7, 8 and 13)”

[2.1] Another argument of the learned advocate for the petitioner is that petitioner is ready and willing to deposit 20% of the cheque amount and in this regard, the petitioner has filed an undertaking however, it is needless to say that once the petitioner is convicted and warrant under Section 418(2) of the CrPC (section 548 of the BNSS ) is issued on 05.03.2025, exercise of power of suspending the sentence without filing of statutory appeal, is not permissible in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Vasudev Sompura Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2024 (3) GLR 1737 and Sharad Jethalal Savla Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. in CRMA No.19862/2025 as well as the decision dated 10.02.2022 of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Istadev Projects Pvt. Ltd. Company Thro Maheshbhai Virabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat [Special Criminal Application No.1704/2022].