BALU DNYANDEO KHARAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is an admitted fact on record that, after completion of investigation, the police have submitted charge-sheet in the present crime. Therefore Petitioner is having a substantive alternate remedy by way of filing an application for discharge before the Trial Court, as contemplated under Sec. 227 of Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) It is the settled position of law and as has been decided in catena of decisions by Hon'ble Supreme Court, ordinarily the Court will not entertain the Petition under Article 226 /227 Constitution of India, where the Petitioner has an alternative remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. Though no hurdle can be put against the exercise of the constitutional powers of the High Court, it is well recognized principle which gained judicial recognition that, the High Court should direct party to avail himself of such remedies, one or other before he resorts to the constitutional remedy. Reliance is placed on the following decisions :

(3.) According to us, filing an application for discharge before the Trial Court is not an onerous remedy and in fact an equally efficacious remedy. The Petitioner cannot be permitted to raise a spacious plea calling upon this Court to adjudicate his innocence in a Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India. It is against the settled principles of law. At the same time, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to make the statutory provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 otious, by directly approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.