Pavankumar Bhurmalji Ostwal and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. - Court Judgment |
| Criminal |
| Mumbai High Court |
| Jul-14-2008 |
| Cri. Appln. No. 2191 of 1996 |
| V.R. Kingaonkar, J. |
| 2008(6)MhLj691 |
| Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 156(3) and 482 |
| Pavankumar Bhurmalji Ostwal and ors. |
| State of Maharashtra and anr. |
| R.N. Dhorde and ;N.B. Suryawanshi, Advs. |
| B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for Respondent No. 1 and ;J.R. Shah, Adv. for Respondent No. 2 |
| Application dismissed |
.....in sub-section (1) of section 34 of the 1996 act with slight modification. therefore, reference to the provisions of section 33 of the 1940 act in article 3 of schedule-i of the bombay court fees act has to be construed, in view of the provisions of section 8 of the general clauses act, as reference to the provisions of section 34 of the 1996 act. so far as an appeal filed under section 37 of the 1996 act is concerned, perusal of section 37 shows that an appeal is provided to the appellate court against an order setting aside an arbitral award or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34. thus, as the provisions of article 3 of schedule-i do not apply to an application or petition filed under section 34 of the 1996 act, they will also not apply to the memorandum of appeal filed to set aside or modify an award made by the arbitrator under the 1996 act. in other words nothing contained in article 3 of schedule-i of the bombay court fees act applies to an application, petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify any award made under the 1996 act as it does not apply to an application or petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify an..........for the parties.2. it is not necessary to consider the merits of the matter. for, so far, no process has been issued in the matter and there is only order under section 156(3) of the criminal procedure code calling upon the police to file report. there is irregularity pointed out by learned advocate, but at this stage, the same need not be gone into. for, the applicants are yet to come in the picture. no process is issued against them. they cannot be branded as 'accused'. the application is premature. the persons who are in the embryonic stage and have not yet roped in as accused, have no locus standi to challenge that order. the applicants will be entitled to file the application or to take any appropriate step only after the issuance of process. the impugned order cannot be, therefore, quashed in the exercise of power under section 482 of the criminal procedure code. the apex court in jayant vitamins ltd. v. chaitanyakumar and anr. : 1992crilj3450 , held that quashing of the investigation by the high court would not be permissible at such premature stage. similar view is taken in b.s. khatri v. state of maharashtra and anr. : 2004(1)bomcr424 .3. the legal position is well.....
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.
1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the order rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code in a criminal complaint case filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Nandurbar.
Heard learned advocates for the parties.
2. It is not necessary to consider the merits of the matter. For, so far, no process has been issued in the matter and there is only order under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code calling upon the police to file report. There is irregularity pointed out by learned advocate, but at this stage, the same need not be gone into. For, the applicants are yet to come in the picture. No process is issued against them. They cannot be branded as 'accused'. The application is premature. The persons who are in the embryonic stage and have not yet roped in as accused, have no locus standi to challenge that order. The applicants will be entitled to file the application or to take any appropriate step only after the issuance of process. The impugned order cannot be, therefore, quashed in the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Apex Court in Jayant Vitamins Ltd. v. Chaitanyakumar and Anr. : 1992CriLJ3450 , held that quashing of the investigation by the High Court would not be permissible at such premature stage. Similar view is taken in B.S. Khatri v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. : 2004(1)BomCR424 .
3. The legal position is well settled. The challenge to orders which are passed behind back of the applicants and which do not directly affect their liberty cannot be challenged by them. Consequently, this application is dismissed, as the same is premature. In case the applicants are aggrieved by any further order, the liberty to take up all such points which are kept open. No costs.