Bombay High Court
SANJEEV SAT PRAKASH GOYALversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the delay and the availability of a revision remedy barred the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 and Section 482.
Summary
The petitioner challenged the legality of an order dated 16 August 2024 issued by the JMFC, which authorized a process against him under IPC Sections 323 and 506(2). The writ petition was filed on 17 July 2025, nearly a year after the impugned order, with no explanation for the delay. The court noted that an alternative remedy of revision was available, and the petitioner had not exhausted it. It held that the delay and the existence of a statutory remedy precluded the exercise of the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the accompanying interim application was also disposed of.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate remedy for challenging the JMFC's order – a writ petition under Article 227/Section 482 or a revision?
- Does the delay of nearly one year in filing the writ petition bar the High Court from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. Section 482
- Constitution of India — s. Article 227
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 506(2)
Subjects
- writ petition
- delay
- jurisdiction
- Article 227
- Section 482
- revision
- extraordinary jurisdiction
- criminal procedure
Judgment
08-WP-4087-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ARJUN WRIT PETITION NO.4087 OF 2025
VITTHAL
KUDHEKAR Sanjeev Sat Prakash Goyal ...Petitioner
Digitally signed by Versus
ARJUN VITTHAL
KUDHEKAR The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
Date: 2026.09.22
20:03:08 +0530 WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4412 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.4087 OF 2025
Sanjeev Sat Prakash Goyal ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
——————
Mr. A. Karim Pathan a/w Shane Illahi, for the Petitioner/Applicant.
Ms. S. M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent-State.
PSI Kajal Pansare, Azad Maidan Police Station, present.
——————
Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar, J.
Date: 22 September 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Pathan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner
and Ms. Yadav, learned APP, for the Respondent-State.
2. By this Writ Petition, the challenge is to the legality and validity of
the Order dated 16th August 2024 passed by the learned JMFC, 64th
Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, below Exhibit-1 in C.C. No.2821/Misc/2022
(“impugned Order”), by which process has been issued against the
Petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 506(2) of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).
Arjun 1
08-WP-4087-2025.doc
3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the impugned Order
is dated 16th August 2024 and the Writ Petition has been filed on 17th
July 2025 i.e. after almost one year. In the Writ Petition there is no
explanation whatsoever is given for delay.
4. It is also required to be noted that there is an alternate remedy of
a Revision. However, the Petitioner has impugned the Order directly in
this Court.
5. Accordingly, as there is delay in filing the Writ Petition and as
there is an alternate remedy, this is not a fit case to exercise the
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
6. In the facts and circumstances, no case is made out for exercise of
extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
8. As the Writ Petition is dismissed, nothing survives in the Interim
Application and the same is also disposed of.
[Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]
Arjun 2
Checking your session…