AJAY MURLIDHARJI LADDHA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Mardikar, learned Senior Advocate and Shri Patil, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. Learned Advocate for respondent No.2 has taken a strong objection as regards the maintainability of petition contending that an alternate remedy in the nature of revision under Sec. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is available to the petitioners. He placed reliance upon the view taken by the coordinate Division Bench of this Court in the case of Avinash and Ors. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2016 ALL MR (cri) 985. Shri Patil also submits that it would be open for the petitioner to approach the Sessions Court for filing revision in this case.

(2.) It is true that there is an alternate remedy available in the nature of revision questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed under Sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But, merely because the revisional remedy is available in a particular case, the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be barred. Of course, in such a case, it would be in the discretion of this Court as to whether or not to entertain such a petition and the discretion has to be exercised soundly and not arbitrarily.

(3.) In the present case, the facts show that there are several material factors which have not been prima facie considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge when he passed the impugned order. These material facts and circumstances of the case go to the very root of the matter and such non-consideration has, prima facie, resulted into arbitrariness on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Whenever there is arbitrariness, there involves the aspect of rule of law, which runs through Article 14 and 21 like a common thread and has been called to Article 14 like a "brooding omnipresence" (See Smt. Maneka Gandhi V/s Union of India and another, AIR 1978 597).