Bombay High Court
Dilip Balkrishna Admane And 2 Others vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps ... on 1 April, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:3393
1 12-wp-227-24j.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 227 OF 2024
1. Dilip Balkrishna Admane,
Aged 70 years, Occ. Private
2. Prashant Dilip Admane,
Aged 45 years, Occ. Business
3. Kamal Dilip Admane,
Aged 69 years, Occ. Housewife,
All the petitioners R/o. Buliding No. A1/2,
Flat No. 3B, 3rd Floor, Nirmal Nagri,
Near Shitala Mata Mandir, Umred Road,
Nagpur. Tah. & Dist. Nagpur. . . . PETITIONERS
(Original Accused)
// V E R S U S //
1. State of Maharashtra through
Police Station Officer,
Police Station Nandanwan,
Tah. & Dist. Nagpur.
2. Rupal Ganesh Gupta,
Aged 52 years, Occ. Housewife,
R/o. Plot No. 27, Shrikrushna Nagar,
Wathoda Layout, Nagpur
Tah. & Dist. Nagpur.
(Original Complainant) . . . RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Jasprit Singh Chilotra a/w. Ms. Pooja K. Adnani, Advocate for
petitioners.
Ms. P. T. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no. 1/State.
Shri P. K. Mishra, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- M. W. CHANDWANI, J.
DATED :- 01.04.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
2 12-wp-227-24j.odt
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. It is not necessary to go into the matrix of the case. Suffice
to say that respondent no. 2 has filed an application before the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur (for short, "the CJM") against the
petitioners alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections
406, 420, 466, 468, 471 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The
learned CJM deemed it appropriate to send the application to Police
Station, Nandanwan for conducting enquiry under Section 202 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Police Station Nandanwan
submitted a report to the learned CJM with a conclusion that no
offence has been made out. However, by the impugned order the
learned CJM after considering the allegations made in the application
issued process against the petitioners for the offences punishable under
the aforesaid Sections of the IPC. Feeling aggrieved by the issuance of
process, the present proceeding has been filed under Article 226, 227
of the Constitution of India r/w. Section 482 of the CrPC.
4. Amongest others, one of the grounds raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioners is that the report submitted by the Police has
3 12-wp-227-24j.odt
not been considered by the learned CJM while issuing the process.
According to him, the learned CJM was oblivious of the fact that the
report has been called from Police Station, Nandanwan under Section
202 of the CrPc. and therefore, without considering the said report, the
impugned order came to be passed, which does not sustain in the eyes
of law. Hence, he seeks quashing of the impugned order of issuance of
process against the petitioners.
5. Per contra, Shri P. K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent no. 2 vehemently submitted that the report of
Police Station, Nandanwan was already on record and therefore, it
cannot be said that the report filed by the Police has not been
considered by the learned CJM while issuing the process. He
supported the order of issuance of process by the learned CJM and
seeks dismissal of the petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
and having gone through the impugned order and the report submitted
by Police Station, Nandanwan, it transpires that after passing of the
order for enquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC, the report was
submitted by Police Station, Nandanwan wherein, in the concluding
paras it has been observed that there is no evidence to show that the
petitioners have committed the aforesaid offence. Also, the impugned
4 12-wp-227-24j.odt
order passed by the learned CJM does not reflect that she has gone
through the report filed by Police Station, Nandanwan. However, there
is no observation which mentions that the report filed by the Police has
been overruled; rather, there is no whisper of the Police report in the
impugned order at all. Hence, while issuing the process against the
petitioner, the report filed by Police Station, Nandanwan has not been
considered by the learned CJM which she ought to have.
7. Therefore, the impugned order of issuance of process
against the petitioners suffered from infirmity and is required to be set
aside with a direction to the learned CJM to consider the report filed by
Police Station, Nandanwan alongwith other material available on
record and pass an appropriate reasoned order. Needless to mention
here that the learned CJM may not get influenced by the observations
made in this order.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in the above said
terms. Rule made absolute accordingly.
(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.)
RR Jaiswal
Signed by: Mr. Rajnesh Jaiswal
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/04/2025 14:05:29
