Quashed

Anjani Kumar Rameshkumar Chaudhari and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Oct 2023APL/495/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed an unreasoned order of process issuance passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate for lacking a reasoned application of mind. The Magistrate was directed to pass a fresh order on merits. This decision did not examine the substantive merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of issuance of process is quashed; Magistrate directed to pass order afresh on merits.

Anjani Kumar Rameshkumar Chaudhari and Ors. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

Chitra Sonawane.

Apl-495-2019.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.495 OF 2019

¶6

1. Mr. Anjani Kumar Rameshkumar
Chaudhari
Ex-Director, Mahindra Logistics Ltd
1A/1B, 4th Floor, Techniplex-I
Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar
Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062

¶7

2. Mr. Zhooben D. Bhiwandiwala
Director, Mahindra Logistic Ltd
1A/1B, 4th Floor, Techniplex-I,
Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar
Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062

¶8

3. Mr. Parag C. Shah Digitally signed by Director, Mahindra Logistic Ltd CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY 1A/1B, 4th Floor, Techniplex-I, SANJAY SONAWANE Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar SONAWANE Date:2023.10.10 Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 19:57:14+0530

¶9

4. Mr. Chandrashekar Kandasamy
Director, Mahindra Logistic Ltd
1A/1B, 4th Floor, Techniplex-I,
Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar
Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062

¶10

5. Mr. Ruzbeh B. Irani
Ex-Director, Mahindra Logistics Ltd
1A/1B, 4th Floor, Techniplex-I,
Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar
Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062

¶11

6. Mr. Sunish M. Sharma
Director, Mahindra Logistics Ltd

Chitra Sonawane.

Apl-495-2019.docx

1A/1B, 4th Floor, Techniplex-I,
Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar
Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062

¶16

7. Mr. Sanjeev H. Aga
Residing at 1301 Satguru Sanskar,
3rd Road,Near Almeida Park,
Off Turner Road, Bandra West,
Mumbai-400050

¶17

8. Ms. Neelam Deo
Residing at Apartment No.-4,
Fourth Floor, Scherazade Colaba,
Dilip Sardesai Chowk, Near Faryas
Hotel, Colaba, Mumbai-400005.
Currently at, 113 W Gorgas Lane,
Philadelphia, PA 19119, USA

¶18

9. Mr. Ajay N. Mehta
Director, Mahindra Logistics Ltd
1A/1B, 4th Floor, Techniplex-I,
Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar
Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062

¶19

10. Mr. Vijay Murgesan Nadar
Operations Supervisor
Mahindra Logistics Ltd
1A/1B, 4th Floor, Techniplex-I
Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar
Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 ...Applicants/
 Ori.Accused Nos.2 to 11

¶20

Versus

¶21

1. State of Maharashtra
through the office of Public
Prosecutor, High Court, Bombay

Apl-495-2019.docx

Chitra Sonawane.

2. Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai, Office of the
Assistant Commissioner ‘S’ Ward,
Municipal Office Building,
Mangatram Petrol Pump,
L.B.S. Marg, Bhandup (W),
Mumbai-400078

¶26

3. Mr. S. B. Mahajan
Adult of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant
Assistant Law Officer, Grade-II
Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai, Office of the
Assistant Commissioner ‘S’ Ward,
Municipal Office Building,
Mangatram Petrol Pump,
L.B.S. Marg, Bhandup (W),
Mumbai-400078…. Respondents

¶27

Mr Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate a/w Mr Aditya Khandeparkar,
Ms Aekta Patel, Mr Gaurav Patole and Ms Mayuri Karekar i/b
Khandeparkar Law Office for the Applicants.

¶28

Ms MR Tidke, APP for respondent No.1-State.

¶29

Ms Purnima Kantharia a/w Mr DR Kawale for respondents No.2
and 3.

¶30

Coram: R. N. Laddha, J.

¶31

 Date : 10 October, 2023.

¶32

P.C. :-

¶33

The challenge in this Criminal Application is to the order
dated 24.03.2017 of issuance of process by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, 41st Court, Shindewadi, Dadar, Mumbai,

Apl-495-2019.docx

Chitra Sonawane.

in CC No.4103367/SS/2017.

¶38

2.Heard Mr Shirish Gupte, the learned Senior Counsel,
appearing on behalf of the applicants; Ms MR Tidke, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State; and Ms
Purnima Kantharia, learned Counsel for respondents No.2 and 3.

¶39

3.Upon perusal of the Order dated 24.03.2017 (‘impugned
order’) passed in CC No.4103367/SS/2017 by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, 41st Court, Shindewadi, Dadar, Mumbai,
it is apparent that the impugned order is cryptic, unreasoned and
passed without application of mind.

¶40

4.The learned Magistrate has affixed a rubber stamp engraved
with the following words:

¶41

“ Order
Perused complaint and
documents annexed. Heard.
Prima facie case has been
made out against the accused.
Hence, issue process against
accused as prayed.

¶42

Sd/-
Metropolitan Magistrate,
41st Court, Shindewadi,
Dadar,Mumbai.
24/3/17”

¶43

5.The Magistrate needs to demonstrate such application of
mind by giving reasons as to why the process is issued against the
accused. Therefore, the impugned order of issuance of process is
liable to be quashed and set aside. However, at the same time, it

Apl-495-2019.docx

Chitra Sonawane.

must be considered that if the Magistrate did not fulfil his duty,
the respondents Nos.2 and 3/ complainant should not be held
responsible and should not have to endure any consequences due
to the Magistrate’s failure. As a result, the impugned order of
issuance of a process, in CC No.4103367/SS/2017 by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, 41st Court, Shindewadi, Dadar, Mumbai,
is quashed and set aside, and the learned Magistrate is directed to
pass an order afresh on its own merits in accordance with law.

¶48

6.The application, as such, stands disposed of. It goes without
saying that, if necessary, the applicants are free to seek legal
redress for their grievances, if the occasion so arises. It is made
clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the case and
all contentions of all the parties are left open.

¶49

R. N. LADDHA, J.

Anjani Kumar Rameshkumar Chaudhari and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjani Kumar Rameshkumar Chaudhari and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shree Vastucreation Developers and Ors. vs Singh Decorators and Anr.

Girish Hanmant Kale Vs Sanjay Ambadas Waikar and Anr.

Misayan Francis Bandya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vipul Ramesh Bhagat Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gannamani Rao Venkateswara and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Papa Reddy Kovvuri and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.