Gujarat High Court
Ramesh Panchal Proprietor Of V.V.Go,. ... vs State Of Gujarat on 7 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3119/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 3119 of 2025
==========================================================
RAMESH PANCHAL PROPRIETOR OF V.V.GO,. ENGINEERING WORKS
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK B. GODHAM(16165) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS DHWANI TRIPATHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 07/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking conversion of NBW into BW issued vide order dated 04.07.2024 18th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, NI Act Court No.34, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.3400027 of 2016.
Having heard learned advocate for the respective parties and perusing the record it appears that the petitioner has directly approached this Court challenging the judgment and order of conviction without resorting to the alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner and hence, as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of Bhoomi Exim & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (SCR.A/12711/2023, dtd. 07.10.2023); Arun Shankar Shukla Vs. State of U.P & Ors, reported in 1999 (6) SCC 146 and Hamida Vs. Rashid alias Rasheed and Ors. reported in (2008) 1 SCC 474, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hamida (Supra) has been pleased to observe in Head-note B as under:
"B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S.482 - Inherent powers of High Page 1 of 2 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 23:16:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3119/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined Court - Scope - Limits of - Alternative remedy - Availability of - Effect
- Held, has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in rare cases and that too to correct patent illegalities or when some miscarriage of justice is done - Practice of High Courts in entertaining petitions under S.482, when there was an effective alternative remedy available, deprecated - Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under S.482 CrPC at an interlocutory stage which are often filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure, as in the instant case, or to delay the trial which enable the accused to win over the witnesses by money or muscle power or they may become disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriage of justice (paras 7, 8 and 13)"
It is also appropriate to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Vasudev Sompura Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2024 (3) GLR 1737 and Sharad Jethalal Savla Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. in CRMA No.19862/2025.
In view of the above decisions as well as the fact that statutory remedy is available under law, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Sec.528 of BNSS. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Page 2 of 2 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 23:16:06 IST 2025