Gujarat High Court
Aashish Akbarali Saiyed vs State Of Gujarat on 4 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/12111/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 12111 of 2025
==========================================================
AASHISH AKBARALI SAIYED
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
SAQUIB S ANSARI(7152) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 04/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] By way of present petition under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the BNSS, the petitioner has
prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 25.11.2023 passed by
learned Addl. JMFC, Surendranagar, in Criminal Case No. 1155/2017,
whereby, the petitioner has been convicted for one year and six months
under Section 138 of the NI Act and as the petitioner was remained absent,
non-bailable warrant came to be issued.
[2.0] 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. It appears that the
petitioner is convicted on 25.11.2023 and petitioner has filed the present
petition in August, 2025. Further, petitioner has directly approached this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without availing
statutory remedy 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/12111/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
Hamida (Supra) has been pleased to observe in Head-note B as under:
"B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S.482 - Inherent powers of High 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)"
[2.1] 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 as well as the decision dated 10.02.2022 of the
coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Istadev Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Company Thro Maheshbhai Virabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat [Special
Criminal Application No.1704/2022].
[3.0] 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 in limine. It
is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate statutory remedy
before the appropriate Forum. It is made clear that this Court has not gone
into the merits of the case.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
