28.apl.840.24.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.840 OF 2024 (Smt. Himanshi w/o Deepak Aswani Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant In-person. Ms R.V. Sharma, APP for the State. Mr. K.H. Dodani, Advocate for non-applicant No.2. CORAM:- URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED :- JANUARY 2, 2025 Present application is filed by the applicant challenging the impugned order of issuance of process passed on 16/02/2024 by which the 14th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.M.F.C., Nagpur issued the process against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The applicant appeared In-person by following the due process and submitted that the complainant is a practising Advocate since last more than 30 years in various District Courts as well as this Court also, and therefore, due to his pressure she is not getting an opportunity to put her case properly before the Court even the Investigating Officer is also not carrying out the investigation properly in other criminal proceedings, and therefore, she is having apprehension that she would not get justice in that Court even the Magistrate has not considered the material before the issuing process and mechanically issued the process against the present applicant, and therefore, the order passed by the Judicial 2025:BHC-NAG:107 28.apl.840.24.odt 2 Magistrate First Class deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned APP and learned Counsel for the non-applicant No.2 strongly opposed the application on the ground that it is not that the Magistrate has mechanically issued the process. Initially, the report under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was called by the Magistrate. The report was perused by the Magistrate and during inquiry the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of the various witnesses and thereafter come to the conclusion that there is a substance in the allegations made in the complaint and on perusal of the said report, the Magistrate has issued the process under Section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The another limb of submission made by the learned Counsel for non-applicant No.2 is that the application itself is not maintainable before this Court as alternate remedy is available to the present applicant before the Sessions Court. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Abhisek Ranjan Vs. Vidharshan Perera and ors. [2024 SCC OnLine Bom 448] and Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2772 of 2023 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with the issue regarding the alternate remedy and the maintainability of the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submitted that in view of the fact that the alternate remedy is available to the present applicant. She cannot directly approached to this Court without availing 28.apl.840.24.odt 3 the remedy available under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Alternatively, the applicant also submitted that if the matter is expedited before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, she is not inclined to challenge the said order before Revisional Court also. Only directions can be given to the Judicial Magistrate First Class to dispose of the matter expeditiously. Learned Counsel for the non-applicant No.2 submitted that the matter is already fixed for recording the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses and he would fully cooperate with the Court to dispose of the trial expeditiously. Thus, both parties agreed to dispose of the trial expeditiously before the Judicial Magistrate First Class and also agreed to cooperate with the Court to dispose of the trial. 5. It is an admitted fact that the applicant directly approached to this Court without availing the remedy available under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. The powers of this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is now well settled. Such exercise has limited scope and only if it is found that the proceedings before the Court is an abuse of the process of law and unwarranted, the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be entertained. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its recent judgment also dealt with this issue and held that inherent power of the Court can be exercised when there is no remedy provided in the 28.apl.840.24.odt 4 Code of Criminal Procedure for redressal of the grievance. It is well settled that the inherent power of the Court can ordinarily be exercised when there is no express provision in the Code under which order impugned can be challenged. 6. In view of the above well settled legal position and in view of the submissions made by both the parties, it would be appropriate to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.6, Nagpur to dispose of the trial within six months and both the parties shall cooperate with the Court to dispose of the trial within six months. 7. In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following order: (i) The application is disposed of with direction to expedite the case bearing SCC No.2180/2024 within six months. (ii) The complainant as well as the applicant who is the original accused shall cooperate with the Court to dispose of the trial without seeking unnecessary adjournment and producing the evidence before the Court. (iii) The trial Court shall give sufficient opportunity to both the parties to adduce the evidence before it. 8. The application is disposed of. (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) *Divya