Bombay High Court
Maheshkumar Hargovind Goyal vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps, Wadi, Nagpur ... on 7 May, 2024
Author: G. A. Sanap
Bench: G. A. Sanap
2024:BHC-NAG:5464
-1- 1.APPW.88.2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPW) NO. 88 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 502 OF 2022
Maheskumar Hargovind Goyal
Vs.
State of Maharashtra, through PSO, PS, Wadi, Nagpur City, Nagpur & Ors.
**********************************************************************************************
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
**********************************************************************************************
Mr. Anil S. Mardikar, Senior Advocate a/b Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate for the
Applicant.
Ms. Kavita H. Bhondge, APP for Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4.
CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
DATED : 7th MAY, 2024.
. Heard learned Senior Advocate for the applicant and
learned APP for the State. Perused the record and proceedings.
2. This application has been filed seeking review of
clause (ii) of the operative part of the judgment and order
passed by this Court on 29th March, 2023 in Criminal Writ
Petition No.502/2022.
3. The Registrar (Judicial) has raised an objection as to
the maintainability of this application on the ground that,
against the order passed by this Court in the exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the
review application under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, is not maintainable. For the purpose of proper
appreciation of the submissions, it would be necessary to
reproduce the operative part of the order. It reads thus:
-2- 1.APPW.88.2023.odt
"[i] The order dated 07.06.2022, passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court no.2, Nagpur,
below application (Exh.80) in Regular Criminal Case
No.1990/2018, is quashed and set aside.
[ii] At the same time, it is made clear that setting aside of
the impugned order shall not stand in the way of the
Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation in
the matter and collect the evidence and depending upon
the result of the investigation, file supplementary charge-
sheet against the petitioner/accused no.7 by invoking the
provisions of Section 173, sub section (8) of Cr.P.C.
[iii] The petition stands disposed of. Rule is made
absolute."
4. Learned Senior Advocate, in support of his
submission as to the maintainability of this application, has
relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Umar Mohamed Malbari Vs. K.P. Gaikwad, Dy.
Commissioner of Police and Another [1988 Mh.L.J. 1034].
Relying upon this decision, it is submitted that, after passing the
order in the context of the relief sought, the High Court can
only quash the order passed by the concerned Authority. In
such cases, there the power of the High Court stops. It has no
power to go further and to correct an excessive order passed by
the Authority concerned.
5. On perusal of the operative part of the order, as
reproduced above, it is evident that, in the context of the order
impugned in the writ petition and the final conclusion arrived
at as to the merits of the matter, the observation as set out in
clause (ii) of the operative part of the order was found
appropriate and necessary by this Court. It cannot be said that,
-3- 1.APPW.88.2023.odt
in terms of clause (ii) of the operative part of the order, any
direction or writ was issued by the Court. The writ was issued in
terms of clause (i) of the operative part of the order. It is,
therefore, apparent that the order passed in the exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
cannot be subjected to review, and that too on the specious
grounds stated in the application. As such, this application
deserves to be dismissed.
6. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that, in view of
the observations made by the Court, the Investigating Officer
has filed the charge-sheet. As far as this aspect is concerned, a
separate and independent remedy is available to the applicant.
He can very well take recourse to the said remedy, if so advised.
7. Accordingly, it is held that the objection raised by
the Registrar (Judicial) is sustainable. This application is not
maintainable. As such, the application stands disposed of as
having not maintainable.
(G. A. SANAP, J.)
Vijay
Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/05/2024 14:31:53
