1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NOS. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 AND 49 OF 2010 Mrs. Vijaylaxmi R. Neurekar, Major of age, Director of M/s. Rajnil Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., A-3, Gabriel Apartments 53, Erasmo Carvalho Street, Margao, Goa. ... Petitioner versus 1. Mr. Daulatrao Yeshwantrao Chowgule, Major of age, Residing at 160/61, Mangor Hill, Vasco, Goa. 2. State through P.P. ... Respondents Shri N. N. Sardessai, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.2. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 13TH JULY, 2010. ORAL ORDER Heard Shri N. Sardessai, the learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner. 2 2. The Petitioner is an accused, and in these Writ Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioner has challenged the Orders issuing process against her under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. Three of the Orders were issued in the year 2004. Seven Orders were issued in 2005, and two Orders were issued in the year 2006. 4. The details are as follows: WRIT PETITION CASE NO. DATE OF ISSUE OF PROCESS 38/2010 305/OA/NI/05/D 27-6-2005 39/2010 306/OA/NI/05/II 21-4-2005 40/2010 878/OA/NI/04/D 14-11-2005 41/2010 1238/OA/NI/04/I 25-1-2005 42/2010 120/OA/NI/06/E 23-1-2006 43/2010 1034/OA/NI/04/D 19-11-2004 44/2010 1002/OA/NI/05/D 05/04/06 45/2010 1240/OA/NI/04/D 06/04/05 46/2010 877/OA/NI/05/D 05/12/05 47/2010 103/OA/NI/04/I 06/02/04 48/2010 304/OA/NI/05/D 14-9-2005 49/2010 1035/OA/NI/04/D 22-12-2004 3 5. Shri Sardessai, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was one of the two Directors of accused no.1/M/s.Rajnil Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. The other Director, namely accused no.2 was her husband who had signed the subject cheques, and the Petitioner was accused no.3. Learned Counsel submits that the Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code because of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Saroj Kumar Rodal dated 16-1-2007 reported in (2007 (6) SCC 363) which makes the position of law clear that there must be averments in the complaint to the effect that the Director sought to be prosecuted was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. Learned Counsel submits that there is no limitation prescribed for invoking Section 482 of the Code. Learned Counsel submits that in case these petitions succeed no prejudice is going to be caused to the Complainant who can proceed against the Company and other Director. The Order issuing process is revisable. Powers of revision have been concurrently conferred on the Court of Sessions and this Court. The learned Counsel has not been able to point out as to why the Petitioner/Accused did not pursue her ordinary remedies against the said Orders issuing process against her and had to wait to have recourse to extraordinary remedy. The Petitioner could have approached the Court of Sessions or this Court in revisional jurisdiction. To invoke revisional jurisdiction a time limit is laid down. A party ought not be 4 allowed to sleep over his or her rights and then invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court because no limitation is provided. 6. The Judgment in Saroj Kumar(supra) follows the Judgment of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Balla and another, a three Judge Judgment dated 20-9-2005 reported in ((2005) 8 SCC 89) which clearly states that it is necessary to aver in the complaint that at the time of the commission of the offence the accused was in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company, and without this averment in the complaint the requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied. Therefore, if at all, the law was unclear before, it is clear, at least for the last five years. Saroj Kumar(supra) therefore can give no cause to the Petitioner to approach the Court, five years later. 7. The Petitioner had the remedy of correcting the Orders issuing process against her, assuming that they were incorrect, by way of filing revision application. The inherent power under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised sparingly and in rare cases.The Apex Court in Hamida v. Rashid @ Rasheed & others(2007 AIR SCW 3123) has reiterated that inherent power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code or in other enactment for redressal of the aggrieved party. The Petitioner had 5 revisional jurisdiction to invoke the Court of Sessions or this Court to redress her grievance which for reasons best known to the Petitioner, the Petitioner has chosen not to invoke. 8. Considering that, in my opinion, there is nothing special or extraordinary in the cases of the Petitioner for this Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. 9. Criminal Writ Petitions are therefore hereby dismissed, in limine. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD