Petitioners sought quashing of an order issuing process against them for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC after a private complaint. The High Court held the Magistrate had considered the complaint and verification and found a prima facie case, and dismissed the petition at threshold.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:BHC-AUG:28593
corrected-14-CRIWP-1650-24 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
14 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1650 OF 2024
Ram Ganeshrao Bedre And Others VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
Mr. V.V. Ingale, Advocate for Petitioners Mr. V.M. Jaware, APP for Respondent No.1 – State
[CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.] DATE : 02nd DECEMBER, 2024
ORDER :
1 of 5
S.P. Rane
corrected-14-CRIWP-1650-24 2
Magistrate, First Class, Sonpeth, District Parbhani on 13.09.2022 in R.C.C. No.71/2022 for the offences punishable under sections 323,504,506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2 of 5
S.P. Rane
corrected-14-CRIWP-1650-24 3
contents of the complaint. On 13.09.2024, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class passed an order and issued process against the present petitioners. The learned Magistrate satisfied about existence of prima facie case is made out against the present petitioners for issuance of process under sections 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code after consideration of contents of complaint, verification as well as after hearing the counsel for the complainant.
3 of 5
S.P. Rane
corrected-14-CRIWP-1650-24 4
“38. The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the Accused. No doubt, that the order need not contain detailed reasons. A reference in this respect could be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609, which reads thus:
51 . On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This Section relates to commencement of a criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has been transferred Under Section 192), upon a consideration of the materials before him (i.e. the complaint, examination of the complainant and his witnesses, if present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for proceeding in respect of an offence, he shall issue process against the Accused.
52 . A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction.
4 of 5
S.P. Rane
corrected-14-CRIWP-1650-24 5
only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said Accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the Accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect.
39 . A similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Ashok Mal Bafna (supra)”
the said findings, the present criminal writ petition is dismissed at threshold.
[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE ] JUDGE
5 of 5
S.P. Rane
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Magistrate's order issuing process under Sections 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC was illegal for want of application of mind.
Whether the Revisional Court's refusal to quash the process-issuance order warranted interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalankumar Singh and Others Vs. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶7
Lalankumar Singh and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC Online SC 1383 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ram Ganeshrao Bedre And Others
The State Of Maharashtra
Respondent No.2
Y. G. Khobragade
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
