NEETISH SARDA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Mr. Aggarwal would adopt the submissions made by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Harish Salve in Interim Application Stamp No. 4278 of 2020. In addition, Mr. Aggarwal learned counsel appearing for applicant would submit that once there is closure report filed, the police cannot sit in an appeal over the order. According to him re-investigating a case which is closed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on a report filed by the Dy.S.P. would virtually amount to over reaching the order passed by the Court. In support of his submissions that no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out in case of non payment of amount, as the same is only a commercial dispute, learned counsel placed reliance in the case of Ajay Patodia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; 2004 CriLJ 197 and Vishnu Prasad Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; 2005 (3) MPLJ 23. In support of his submissions that writ petition is maintainable even if there is an alternative remedy available, he would rely on Whirpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors; AIR 1999 SC 22 and Union of India (UOI) and Ors Vs. Tantia Constructions Pvt. Ltd; (2011) 5 SCC 697, Som Mittal Vs. Government of India; 2008 (3) SCC 753 and Mukesh Kishanpuria Vs. State of West Bengal; 2010 (3) JCC 1821.

(2.) For the reasons contained in the order in the Interim Application Stamp No. 4278 of 2020, even the present application stands rejected.

(3.) The observations made in the order passed in Interim Application Stamp No. 4278 of 2020, are prima facie in nature and confined to the adjudication of the present Interim Application only.