Quashed

T v. Narendran v the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Sept 2023WP/4186/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge quashed a cryptic order of issue of process by a Magistrate for lacking reasoned application of mind and failure to consider limitation and statutory sanctions under the Factories Act, 1948, directing a fresh order on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of issuance of process in S.C.C. No. 7437 of 2020 is quashed and set aside, and the Magistrate is directed to pass an order afresh.

T v Narendran Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2023)

bipin prithiani

901-wp-4186.22.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4186 OF 2022

¶6

Mr. T. V. Narendran

¶7

… Petitioner

¶8

Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶9

¶10

Mr. Aabad H. Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w Samsher Garud and Juhi Valia i/by M/s. Jayakar & Partners for the Petitioner. Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.

¶11

¶12

CORAM: R. N. LADDHA, J.

¶13

DATE : 15 SEPTEMBER 2023

¶14

P.C. :-

¶15

. Mr Abad Ponda, the learned Senior Counsel, brought to my attention the order of issuance of process and submitted that the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order, has not taken into account that the cognizance of the alleged offence is barred by limitation, it is without necessary sanction under Section 105 of the Factories Act, 1948 and barred under Section 97 read with Section 111 of the Factories Act, 1948. He also submitted that the order of issuance of the process is a cryptic and unreasoned order in a printed form.

¶16

Upon perusal of the order, it is evident that the learned Magistrate has affixed a rubber stamp engraved with the following

bipin prithiani

901-wp-4186.22.doc

words:

“Order. Issue process against the accused as per offences P.U./Sec……………………….. Summons R/on………………. Dt……..

¶22

CJM, Thane”

¶23

After affixing the aforesaid stamp, the Magistrate filled the blank spaces with the sections of alleged offences by hand. This is not the appropriate manner in which judicial discretion should be exercised by the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate needs to demonstrate such application of mind by giving reasons as to why the process is issued against the accused.

¶24

Therefore, the order of issue process is liable to be quashed and set aside. However, at the same time, it must be considered that if the Magistrate did not fulfil his duty, the respondent/ 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 process, in S.C.C. No. 7437 of 2020, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane, is quashed and set aside, and the learned Magistrate is directed to pass an order afresh by examining the issue of limitation and the relevant provisions of the Factories Act, 1948.

¶25

The petition as such stands disposed of. It goes without saying that if necessary, the petitioner is free to seek legal redress

bipin prithiani

901-wp-4186.22.doc

for their grievances if the occasion so arises. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the case, and the trial Court shall pass an order afresh on its own merits in accordance with the law.

¶30

R. N. LADDHA, J.

¶31

BIPIN Digitally signed by BIPIN DHARMENDER DHARMENDER PRITHIANIDate: 2023.09.15 18:54:30 PRITHIANI +0530

T v. Narendran v the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T v. Narendran v the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Harakchand Shamji Veesaria and Anr.

Meghnad Sudhirchandra Shah Vs Nirmal Adhikari and Anr.

Meghnad Sudhirchandra Shah Vs Nirmal Adhikari and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Gopal Ramesh Sonawane

Rajendra Babulal Jain Vs Shahnoor Ibrahim Gazali and Anr.

Director, Jyotirling Finance and Investment Ltd. Vs Raghunath Kalu Gurav and Anr.