Disposed¶6

Vijaya Vishram Tuljapur Kar v. Vitthal Ukhardu Gunjal

Bombay HC3 Dec 2025WP/862/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration of complaint; CIMS status shown disposed; Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. rejection confirmed; Section 200 Cr.P.C. verification statement/examination on oath; JMFC Phulambri; Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.222 of 2021; Criminal Revision Application No.277 of 2022; Additional Sessions Judge-7 Aurangabad; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; Abhay J. Mantri, J.; Criminal Writ Petition No. 862 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.222 of 2021 restored to its original position; learned Magistrate directed to proceed with the complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C.; rejection of the Section 156(3) prayer confirmed; Rule made absolute. ¶6

Vijaya Vishram Tuljapur Kar Vs Vitthal Ukhardu Gunjal — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.222 of 2021 — shown as disposed of on CIMS although the Magistrate had permitted the complainant to proceed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. — should be restored so that the petitioner may proceed with her complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

Since the learned Magistrate had rejected the Section 156(3) prayer but granted the petitioner the alternative to proceed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., it would not be appropriate to dispose of the complaint without granting her an opportunity to give her verification statement/examine her upon oath under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.222 of 2021 is restored to its original position so that the petitioner may proceed with the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as she desires.

¶5

Key takeaways

The rejection of the prayer to send the complaint for police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is confirmed and is not disturbed.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition by the original complainant against the order dated 28.09.2022 of the JMFC, Phulambri, below Exhibit 1 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.222 of 2021, whereby her prayer to send the complaint for police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was rejected while she was left free to proceed under Section 200 Cr.P.C.; the order had been confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge-7, Aurangabad on 19.03.2025 in Criminal Revision Application No.277 of 2022. During arguments the petitioner confined herself to restoration of the complaint per clause 2 of the 28.09.2022 order, the complaint being shown as disposed of on CIMS despite the Section 200 option remaining open; respondent's counsel raised no objection. Held: it would not be appropriate to dispose of the complaint without granting the petitioner an opportunity to give her verification statement/examine her upon oath under Section 200 Cr.P.C.; Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.222 of 2021 restored to its original position; learned Magistrate to proceed with the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.; rejection of the Section 156(3) prayer confirmed. Petition disposed of; Rule made absolute. (Paras 3-8)

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:33492

¶2

910.WP.862.2025.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 862 OF 2025

¶5

Vijaya Vishram Tuljapurkar age : 46 Years, Occu : Service R/o. C/o. Siddharth Ashram Shala, Chowka, Taluka – Phulambri, District : Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar ...PETITIONER

¶6

Versus

¶7

Vitthal Ukhardu Gunjal, age : 53 Years, Occu : Agri. R/o. Chowka, Taluka – Phulambri, District – Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar ...RESPONDENT

¶8

¶9

Mr. Nitin Trimbak Tribhuwan, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Gurunath Tambade, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶10

¶11

CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. DATE : DECEMBER 03, 2025

¶12

JUDGMENT :

¶13

Heard. Rule . Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard

¶14

finally by consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, at the admission stage.

¶15

The original complainant is aggrieved by the order dated 28^th September 2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phulambri, below Exhibit 1 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.222 of 2021, and the said order was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge-7, Aurangabad by order dated 19^th March 2025, in Criminal Revision Application No.277 of 2022, has preferred this petition.

Page1 of 3

Shrikant Malani

910.WP.862.2025.odt

Although the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders, however, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is only praying for restoration of the complaint as per clause 2 of the order dated 28^th September 2022, which indicates that “ the applicant can proceed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if she desires. ” He submitted that the said complaint is shown as disposed of on the CIMS, i.e., the Court's website. Accordingly, he has tendered across the bar a copy of the case status report obtained from the CIMS of the District Court Aurangabad. Upon perusal of the same, it appears that the matter has been shown as disposed of on the website. The said copy of the case status report is taken on record and marked “X” for identification purposes. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent has given no objection to the restoration of the said complaint.

¶20

Apart from that, on perusal of the order dated 28^th September 2022, it appears that the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer to send the complaint for police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P. C., but granted an alternative to the petitioner to proceed with the complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P. C. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to dispose of the complaint without granting an opportunity to the petitioner to give her verification statement/examine her upon oath U/s 200 of the Cr. P. C. As such, I find substance in his contention, as the petitioner wishes to proceed with the complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P. C.

Page2 of 3

Shrikant Malani

910.WP.862.2025.odt

Having considered the above facts and the no objection of the

¶25

learned counsel for the respondent to restore the complaint, in my view, it would be appropriate to restore Criminal Miscellaneous Applicant No.222 of 2021 to its original position, so that the petitioner may proceed with the complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P. C. as she desires.

¶26

As a consequence, the petition is disposed of as under :

¶27

a) The Criminal Application No.222 of 2021 is restored to its original position.

¶28

b) The learned Magistrate to proceed with the complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P. C. in accordance with the law.

¶29

c) Needless to clarify, rejection of the complaint to send the complaint to the police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P. C. is confirmed.

¶30

Inform the learned Magistrate accordingly.

¶31

Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶32

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)

¶33

Page3 of 3

¶34

Shrikant Malani

Vijaya Vishram Tuljapur Kar v. Vitthal Ukhardu Gunjal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijaya Vishram Tuljapur Kar v. Vitthal Ukhardu Gunjal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balkrishna Vyankatesh Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra through Collector Jalna

Ramrao Venkatrao Deshmukh. Vs the State of Mah.Thro.Collector.

Ramrao Venkatrao Deshmukh. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thro.Collector.

Tejaswee Sumeet Bhosle @ Tejaswee Balwant Jadhav vs Sumeet Mohanrao Bhosale

Ravindra Parmeshwar Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bhushan Namdev Patil Vs the State of Maharahstra and Others