Quashed

Sumitomo Chemical India Ltd. through Its Manager Mr. Anil Khandagale and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Apr 2024/104/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two applications challenged orders issued by a Magistrate for lack of clarity and reasoning. The court found no rationale was provided for issuing process, quashed and set aside the impugned order in both cases, directed the Magistrate to pass a reasoned order afresh after independent evaluation, and disposed of the applications without examining merits.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sumitomo Chemical India Ltd. through Its Manager Mr. Anil… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Mamta Kale

¶2

903-apl-104-2024 & 904-apl-2572024.doc

¶3

MAMTAAMARKALE Digitally signed byMAMTA AMAR KALEDate: 2024.04.0317:03:48 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 104 OF 2024

¶6

Sumitomo Chemical India Ltd. through its Manager Mr. Anil Khandagale and Anr. ..Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents

¶7

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 257 OF 2024

¶8

Dhanaji Gopal Gage and Anr. ..Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents

¶9

Mr. G. I. Sodhi a/w. Mr. Ramprakash Pandey, for the Applicants in both applications.

¶10

Ms. Shilpa Talhar a/w. Mr. Ashok Gawai, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶11

CORAM : R. N. LADDHA, J. DATE : 3 APRIL 2024

¶12

P.C.

¶13

. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned

¶14

APP.

¶15

Mr. G. I. Sodhi, learned counsel for the applicants has drawn my attention to the impugned order of process issuance in both these applications. He contends that the order lacks clarity

¶16

page 1 of 2

¶17

Mamta Kale

¶18

903-apl-104-2024 & 904-apl-2572024.doc

¶19

and reasoning.

¶20

Upon reviewing the order, it becomes evident that the learned Magistrate has not provided any rationale for issuing it. Such an approach does not align with the appropriate exercise of judicial discretion. The Magistrate must demonstrate thoughtful consideration by indicating the reasons behind issuing process against the accused. Therefore, the orders for process issuance in these applications should be quashed and set aside. However, it is essential to recognize that if the Magistrate failed in their duty, the complainant should not bear any consequences due to this lapse. Consequently, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to pass the reasoned order afresh in the cases pending before him after evaluating the matter independently, adhering to the legal principles. The applications, as such, stand disposed of. As a sequel, pending applications also disposed of.

¶21

It goes without saying that, if required, the applicants have liberty to pursue legal remedies for their grievances, if the need arises. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the cases.

¶22

R. N. LADDHA, J.

¶23

page 2 of 2

Sumitomo Chemical India Ltd. through Its Manager Mr. Anil Khandagale and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sumitomo Chemical India Ltd. through Its Manager Mr. Anil Khandagale and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinodkumar Lalbahadur Singh and Another Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai K-East Ward

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and Ors. Vs Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Chandrakant Ramlal Sancheti Vs Lonavala Municipal Council

Dhanaji Gopal Gage and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Iqbal Ebrahim Khan Vs Anutej Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Mr. Iqbal Ebrahim Khan Vs Anutej Construction Pvt. Ltd.