BHARAT S DAHANUKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Applications under section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) can be conveniently disposed of by a common order. Prayer in these Applications is for quashing the complaints filed by the second Respondent under section 138 and section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In both the complaints, the learned Magistrate has issued process.

(2.) The question is whether these Applications can be entertained when a remedy available to the Applicants to prefer a Revision Application under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said code) for challenging the order issuing process has not been exhausted by the applicants. This issue arises in view of a decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of V. K. Jain and ors. vs. Pratap V. Padode and anr. , 2005 (3) Mh. L. J. 778.

(3.) Shri Jha, the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants did not dispute that order passed by the learned Magistrate of issuing process can be challenged by the Applicants by filing a Revision Application under section 397 of the said Code and that the Applicants have not filed such a revision application. He submitted that the remedy available under section 482 of the said code is much wider than the remedy available under section 397 of the said code. He submitted that the scope of powers of this Court under section 482 of the said Code is wider than the limited powers of the Sessions Court in revisional Jurisdiction under section 397 of the said Code. He submitted that if the Applicants file a Revision Application before the Sessions Court and if he does not succeed in the said Revision Application, bar under sub-section (3) of section 397 of the said Code will come in the way of the Applicants in approaching this Court by way of filing an Application for invoking the powers under section 482 of the said Code. He has placed reliance on several decisions which are referred to in this Judgment. He submitted that the view taken by this court in the case of Shri V. K. Jain (supra) is contrary to the law laid down by the apex Court.