- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.514 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.514 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.514 OF 2008 DSL Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioner vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Vaibhav Jogalekar i/b M/s.Res Legal for the petitioner Mr.D.R.More A.P.P. for State Mr.Nagender Rai Sr.Adv. a/w Mr.Abhishek Khare, Mr.Ravi Prakash & Mr.Chandra Prakash i/b M/s.Khare Legal Chambers for Respondent Nos.1 to 5. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : AUGUST 6,2008 : AUGUST 6,2008 : AUGUST 6,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The substantive prayer in this petition is for quashing the impugned order dated 23rd July 2007 by which a private complaint filed by the petitioner has been rejected. Prayers (b) and (c) of this petition read thus: (b) That the impugned ‘C’ Summary Report dated 1.6.2006 be quashed and set aside and judicial notice be taken of the nature in which the false and fabricated report was submitted in response to the Orders of this Hon’ble Court. (c) To transfer the Record and Proceedings of the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate / any other Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Nashik for consideration of the complaint and the Protest Petition thereof with further direction of expeditious hearing. - 2 - 2. Prayers (b) and (c) cannot be considered as the complaint filed by the petitioner is not in existence. A revision application is maintainable against the order dated 23rd July 2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that a Revision Application will lie in this court as well as in the Sessions Court. He submitted that in a similar case a Revision Application has been entertained by this court. He submitted that this petition can be converted into a revision application. He submitted that in any case prayer (b) will have to be considered in this petition. 3. A remedy of filing a revision application against the order dated 23rd July 2007 by invoking the provisions of section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 is certainly available to the petitioner. The result of the order dated 23rd July 2007 is that a private complaint filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The contentions regarding illegality of ‘C’ summary report can be considered in a revision application which may be preferred by the petitioner. 4. If remedy of a revision application under section 397 of the said Code is admittedly available to the Petitioner, normally this court will not exercise its jurisdiction under section 401 of the said Code. Hence, permission cannot be granted to convert this Petition into a revision application under section 401 of the said Code. - 3 - 5. As a remedy of filing a revision application under section 397 of the said Code is available, this petition filed by the petitioner invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is not entertained. The petitioner has also invoked section 482 of the said Code. It is well settled that power under section 482 of the said Code has to be exercised sparingly and in very rare cases. By the impugned order a private complaint filed by the complainant has been dismissed. As an efficacious remedy of filing revision application under section 397 of the said Code is available to the petitioner, this petition is not entertained and the same is rejected by keeping open the remedy of the petitioner of filing a revision application before the appropriate Sessions court. 6. If such revision application is filed, the concerned court is bound to take a note of the fact that the present petition was filed on 5th March 2008, this court issued notice on 26th March 2008 and the petition remained pending in this court till today. 7. All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. 8. If the revision application is filed within a period of six weeks from today, the same shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period six months from the date on which the revision application is - 4 - filed. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE