Partly allowed

Nilesh S/O. Ashok Deshmukh and Others v. Milan W/O. Nilesh Deshmukh

Bombay HC16 Nov 2021WP/1172/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition partly, quashing an order of the JMFC that issued process mechanically against accused who were not relatives of the petitioner, directing the Magistrate to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the JMFC issuing process is set aside; the Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

Nilesh S/O. Ashok Deshmukh and Others Vs Milan W/O. Nilesh… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

(1)

¶2

criwp1172.19

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

920 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1172 OF 2019

¶5

NILESH S/O. ASHOK DESHMUKH AND OTHERS VERSUS MILAN W/O. NILESH DESHMUKH

¶6

Mr. K. N. Shermale, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. C.V. Bodkhe, Advocate h/f Mr. R. V. Gore,
Advocate for the respondent

¶7

CORAM:N. R. BORKAR, J.

¶8

DATE:16-11-2021

¶9

P. C.

¶10

. This petition takes an exception to the
order dated 10-08-2018, passed by the learned JMFC,
Chalisgaon in Criminal Misc. Application No. 936 of
2017 (R.C.C. No. 184/2018).

¶11

2.The respondent herein filed complaint case
against the present petitioners for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of
the IPC. By the order impugned the learned
Magistrate issued process against the present
petitioners for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC.

¶12

1 of 4

¶13

3.I have heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶14

4.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the learned Magistrate has issued the process
mechanically. It is submitted that the learned
Magistrate has issued the process in all against
nine persons and against the persons who are not
even the family member of the petitioners No.1 with
whom the respondent has alleged to have married. It
is submitted that the order passed by the learned
Magistrate thus needs to be quashed and set aside.

¶15

5.On the other hand learned counsel for the
respondent submits that remedy of revision under
Section 397 read with Section 399 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is available to the petitioners
against the order impugned.

¶16

6.It is further submitted that before
issuance of process report under Section 202 of the
Cr.P.C. was called. It is submitted that after
considering the allegations against the petitioners
and report under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal

¶17

2 of 4

¶18

(3) criwp1172.19

¶19

Procedure the learned Magistrate has issued the
process and therefore, no interference is called for
in the order Impugned.

¶20

7.I have perused the order impugned, which
reads thus:

¶21

Perused complaint, verification & report under Section 202
of Cr.P.C. prima facie sufficient material exists for
proceeding the matter against accused Hence issue process
against accused for the offence U/Sec 498-A, 323, 504, 506
of IPC on P.F.

¶22

8.It is well settled that process cannot be
issued mechanically. The order should reflect that
the learned Magistrate has applied mind to the facts
and material placed on record. The order impugned
does not reflect application of mind by the learned
Magistrate as the learned Magistrate has issued the
process for the offence punishable under Section
498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused,
who are not the relatives of petitioner No.1.
Considering the facts and circumstances, the order
impugned cannot be sustained.

¶23

3 of 4

¶24

(4) criwp1172.19

¶25

9.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofPrabhu
Chawala Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2016 A.I.R (S.C.)
4245 has held that the application under Section 482
or Writ Petition cannot be dismissed just because
remedy of revision is available against order of
issuance of process. Thus, following order is
passed:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

i. The petition is partly allowed.

¶28

ii.The order impugned is set aside.

¶29

iii. The learned Magistrate, shall pass the
fresh order in accordance with law.

¶30

VishalK/criwp1172.19

¶31

4 of 4

Nilesh S/O. Ashok Deshmukh and Others v. Milan W/O. Nilesh Deshmukh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilesh S/O. Ashok Deshmukh and Others v. Milan W/O. Nilesh Deshmukh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Vithalrao Nagorao @ Kerba Nawakilkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri Gangadhar Vithalrao Nawakilkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Geetaram Ramds Mate Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravindra S/O. Soma Tayde Vs Mangala Ravindra Tarte (as Shown in Title Clause of Judgement) Mangala W/O. Kailas Sonawane

Ramdeo Chintaman Badgujar Vs Vaishali Ramdeo Badgujar and Others

Shaikh Iqbal S/O Shaikh Gani Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others