Ayush Chaturvedi vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/s The Phoneix Mills Ltd Reg. Office at C/o Market City, Resources Pvt Ltd, RR Hosiery bldg, Shree Laxmi Wollen Mills Estate, Opp Shakti Mills, off Dr E Moses Road, Mahalaxmi Mumbai-400 011 Navi Mumbai-400614 … Org.Complainant. Also at Phoenix Mills Compound, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013.

¶10

M/s Horeshoe Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt Ltd Office at :21st Floor, DLF Square, Jacaranda Marg, DLF Phase-II, … Gurgaon-122002 Org. Accused No.1.

¶11

Page No. 1 of 3 ____________________________________________ 7 January 2025.

¶12

Chitra Sonawane 9-wp-2580-2024.doc

¶13

Mr Amar Agarwal, aged : 41 yrs Adult, r/at J2/14, DLF Phase-2, … Gurgaon-122002 Org.Accused No.2/ Respondents.

¶14

Mr Ankit Dhindale a/w Adv Ishrat Shaikh i/by Chambers of Jangra & Associates for petitioners. Mr MG Patil, APP for State. Ms Lakshita Patyal i/by Nidhi Chheda for respondent No.2.

¶15

Coram : R.N.Laddha, J. Date : 7 January 2025.

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶18

By these petitions, the petitioners seek to challenge orders dated 9.11.2017, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 7^th Court, Dadar, Mumbai, in CC Nos.863/SS/2017 and CC No. 862/SS/2017.

¶19

A close examination of these impugned orders reveals that they lack reasoning and fail to show any thoughtful consideration. According to the established legal principles, the Magistrate is required to record detailed reasons while issuing an order for initiation of legal proceedings. Such orders are not empty formalities; issuing them routinely without cautiously examining the available material on record and appreciating relevant legal

¶20

Page No. 2 of 3 ____________________________________________ 7 January 2025.

¶21

Chitra Sonawane 9-wp-2580-2024.doc

¶22

provisions may result in putting the criminal law in motion and summoning innocent individuals to stand trial. Before issuing a process, the Magistrate must exercise careful discretion and scrutinise the material available on record. The Magistrate must be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to summon the accused for trial. Once this determination is made, it must be recorded in the order. If an order to issue process does not reflect this careful consideration and application of mind, it is subject to being overturned. In this context, a profitable reference can be made to the decision of Lalan Kumar Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra¹ .

¶23

In light of the above, the impugned orders of issuance of process passed in CC No.863/SS/2017 and CC No.862/SS/2017 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 7^th Court Dadar, Mumbai, dated 9 November 2017, are quashed and set aside. However, at the same time, it must be considered that the complainant should not be held responsible for the failure of the Magistrate in fulfilling his duty. Learned Magistrate is, therefore, directed to pass the orders afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶24

The petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.

¶25

[ R. N. Laddha,J. ]

¶26

1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383.

¶27

Page No. 3 of 3

¶28

7 January 2025.

Ayush Chaturvedi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayush Chaturvedi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Madanlal Balmukund Karwa and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Paresh Vilasrao Patil vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ravindra Laxaman Barhate vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pankaj Satishkumar Gupta vs Ramnivas Janardhan Agarwal and Anr.

Vyankatrao Madanrao Patil vs State of Maharashtra

Ayush Chaturvedi vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.