Disposed¶26

Vijay Devkinandan Gupta v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Jan 2026WP/6469/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of JMFC (42nd Court, Shindewadi, Dadar, Mumbai) process-issuance order of 25-10-2024 under S.353B r/w S.471 MMC Act 1888 for non-compliance with S.223 BNSS 2023 notice-to-accused-before-cognizance requirement; consequent warrant quashed; complaint remitted to Magistrate for fresh order; petitioner Vijay Devkinandan Gupta v. State of Maharashtra/BMC; Bombay HC Writ Petition 6469/2025; Jamadar J; 08-01-2026; disposed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of 25 October 2024 (issuing process under S.353-B r/w S.471 MMC Act) and the consequent warrant quashed and set aside; learned Magistrate directed to pass an appropriate order after considering S.223 BNSS 2023; petition disposed. ¶26

Vijay Devkinandan Gupta vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 25 October 2024 issuing process against the petitioner for offences under S.353B r/w S.471 MMC Act could be sustained despite the learned Magistrate's failure to comply with S.223 BNSS 2023 by issuing notice to the accused before taking cognizance.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

In view of the learned Magistrate's non-compliance with S.223 BNSS 2023, the impugned order issuing process cannot be sustained.

¶22

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 25 October 2024 issuing process against the petitioner for offences punishable under S.353-B r/w S.471 MMC Act stands quashed and set aside.ratio¶23
The consequent warrant issued against the petitioner also stands quashed and set aside.ratio¶24
The learned Magistrate is directed to pass an appropriate order after considering the provisions of S.223 BNSS 2023 (complaint remitted back for fresh consideration).ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), single judge (N. J. Jamadar, J.), Writ Petition No. 6469 of 2025, Vijay Devkinandan Gupta v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., decided 8 January 2026. The Court held that the order dated 25 October 2024 of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 42nd Court, Shindewadi, Dadar, Mumbai, issuing process against the petitioner for offences under S.353B r/w S.471 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, could not be sustained because the learned Magistrate did not comply with the mandate of S.223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — no notice having been issued to the accused before taking cognizance. The impugned order and the consequent warrant were quashed and set aside; the learned Magistrate was directed to pass an appropriate order after considering S.223 BNSS 2023, and the petition stood disposed.

¶1

18-WP-6469-2025.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 6469 OF 2025

¶4

Vijay Devkinandan Gupta Versus

¶5

..Petitioner

¶6

State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents

¶7

Mr. A. K. Upadhyay a/w Mr. Rohan Kharat a/w Mr. Mithilesh Tiwari, for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. P. P. Chavan i/b. Komal Punjabi, for Respondent No. 2 & 3 – BMC.

¶9

SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI

¶10

Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.01.13 19:50:34 +0530

¶11

Mr. A. R. Metkari, APP for Respondent – State.

¶12

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 8^th JANUARY 2026

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶15

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 25^th October, 2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 42^nd Court, Shindewadi, Dadar, Mumbai thereby issuing process against the petitioner for the offence under Section 353B r/w Section 471 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (‘the MMC Act’).

¶16

One of the grounds of challenge is that, the learned Magistrate has not complied with the requirements of Section 223 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS,2023”). No notice was issued to the accused before taking cognizance of the offence.

¶17

1/2

¶18

SAINATH

¶19

18-WP-6469-2025.DOC

¶20

The impugned order indicates that, the learned Magistrate has perused the complaint and the documents annexed thereto and proceeded to issue the process against the accused.

¶21

The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2, fairly submits that, the learned Magistrate has not complied with the mandate of the provisions contained in Section 223 of BNSS, 2023, and the complaint be remitted back to the learned Magistrate.

¶22

In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

¶23

Thus, the impugned order dated 25^th October, 2024, issuing process against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 353-B r/w Section 471 of MMC Act, stands quashed and set aside.

¶24

The consequent warrant issued against the petitioner also stands quashed and set aside.

¶25

The learned Magistrate is directed to pass an appropriate order after considering the provisions contained in Section 223 of BNSS, 2023.

¶26

The petition thus stands disposed.

¶27

2/2

¶28

SAINATH

Vijay Devkinandan Gupta v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Devkinandan Gupta v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Amarlal Ramrakhiani vs Dnyaneshwar Sabale and Ors.

Bhavesh Vagesh Shaligram vs Goraksha Tukaram Dumbre

Esque Finmark Private Limited vs Dilip Kumar

Jayshree Rajesh Kanabar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Balaram Kumar Palendra vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashish Shrivastava and Ors. vs M/S Vishrut Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Known as M/S Vishrut Infotech Pvt. Ltd.