Kumble Amit Prabhu v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC13 Feb 2026APL/259/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of process issued without compliance with first proviso to Section 223 BNSS 2023 (mandatory hearing of accused where complaint filed by public servant); Sections 471 and 328A Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act 1888; Kumble Amit Prabhu v. State of Maharashtra and BMC; Criminal Application Nos. 259, 260, 261, 268, 269, 270 of 2026; High Court of Judicature at Bombay; N. J. Jamadar, J.; 13-02-2026; Judicial Magistrate 55th Court Vile-Parle Mumbai; Magistrate to proceed afresh under Section 223 BNSS 2023 with hearing of accused.

What did the court decide?

Order of issuance of process quashed and set aside in each application; learned Magistrate directed to proceed afresh under Section 223 of the BNSS, 2023 after providing the accused the opportunity of hearing envisaged by the first proviso to Section 223. ¶order (i)

Kumble Amit Prabhu vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶order (i)

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders issuing process against the applicants on private complaints filed by a public servant, passed without adhering to the mandate of the first proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS, 2023 (hearing of the accused), are legally sustainable.

¶3

Court's answer

The learned Magistrate issued process on private complaints filed by a public servant straightaway, recording prima facie satisfaction, without providing the accused the opportunity of hearing envisaged by the first proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS, 2023; the process orders are therefore unsustainable and the applications deserve to be allowed.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

The applications stand allowed; the order of issuance of process in each application is quashed and set aside, and the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed afresh under Section 223 of the BNSS, 2023 after providing the accused the hearing envisaged by the first proviso.

¶order (ii)

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Applications Nos. 259, 260, 261, 268, 269 and 270 of 2026, Kumble Amit Prabhu v. State of Maharashtra and BMC (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, N. J. Jamadar, J., 13 February 2026). The applicant challenged identical orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 55th Court, Vile-Parle, Mumbai, issuing process against him for offences punishable under Section 471 read with Section 328A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, on private complaints filed by a public servant. Held: the Magistrate straightaway issued process recording prima facie satisfaction without affording the accused the opportunity of hearing envisaged by the first proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS, 2023; such process orders are legally unsustainable. Applications allowed; the process orders quashed and set aside; Magistrate directed to pass fresh orders after compliance with the first proviso to Section 223, BNSS, 2023.

¶1

6-11-APL259-2026+.DOC

¶2

Santosh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 259 OF 2026

¶5

Kumble Amit Prabhu ...Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and anr. …Respondents AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 260 OF 2026

¶6

SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI

¶7

Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.02.16 20:49:27 +0530

¶8

Kumble Amit Prabhu ...Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and anr. …Respondents AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 261 OF 2026 Kumble Amit Prabhu ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors …Respondents AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 268 OF 2026 Kumble Amit Prabhu ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors …Respondents AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 269 OF 2026 Kumble Amit Prabhu ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and anr. …Respondents AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 270 OF 2026 Kumble Amit Prabhu ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. …Respondents

¶9

1/4

¶10

6-11-APL259-2026+.DOC

¶11

Mr. Prashant Gawali, a/w Kanhiaya Jha, i/b Ayush Kedia, for the Applicant in all APL.

¶12

Mr. D. J. Haldankar, APP for the State – Respondent No.1

¶13

Mr. P. P. Chavhan, i/b Komal Punjabi, for the BMC – Respondent No.2.

¶14

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 13^th FEBRUARY, 2026

¶15

Order:-

¶16

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant.

¶17

In these applications, the applicants take exception to identical orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 55^th Court, Vile-Parle, Mumbai, thereby issuing process against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 471 read with Section 328A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.

¶18

The learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the orders of issuance of process are legally unsustainable as the learned Magistrate has straightaway issued the process on the private complaints without adhering to the mandate contained in the first proviso to Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (“BNSS, 2023”).

¶19

The submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant appears well founded. From the perusal of the impugned orders it becomes abundantly clear that, after noting that the

¶20

2/4

¶21

6-11-APL259-2026+.DOC

¶22

complaints have been filed by the public servant, the learned Magistrate has straightaway issued the process recording the satisfaction that prima facie case has been made out. An opportunity of hearing to the accused, envisaged by the first proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS, 2023, was not provided by the learned Magistrate.

¶23

Mr. Chavhan, the learned Counsel for respondent No.2 - the Municipal Corporation, submitted that the impugned orders do not indicate the compliance of the mandate contained in Section 223 of the BNSS, 2023. The Court may, thus, direct the learned Magistrate to pass fresh order after compliance with the first proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS, 2023.

¶24

In the aforesaid view of the matter, the applications deserve to be allowed.

¶25

Hence, the following order:

¶26

: O R D E R :

¶27

(i) The applications stand allowed.

¶28

(ii) The order of issuance of process in each of the applications stand quashed and set aside.

¶29

3/4

¶30

6-11-APL259-2026+.DOC

¶31

(iii) The learned Magistrate shall proceed afresh under Section 223 of the BNSS, 2023 after providing an opportunity of hearing to the accused as envisaged by the

¶32

first proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS, 2023.

¶33

The applications stand disposed.

¶34

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶35

4/4

Kumble Amit Prabhu v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumble Amit Prabhu v. State of Maharashtra

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

Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited vs Atria Brindavan Power Private Limited

Amreeta Rao Singh vs Harinandan Rambalidar Gupta and Anr.

Amreeta Rao Singh vs Harinandan Rambalidar Gupta and Anr.

Haresh K Dalal Vs the Custodian and Anr.

Daruwalawadi Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. vs Sita Wd/O Pukhraj Chunilal Bafna and Ors.

Seema Pallav Thakar Wife of Pallav Thakar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Ors.