Bombay High Court
Meenal W/O Parshuram Wagh And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 4 August, 2025
(1) 47-WP-1113-2024
IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
47 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1113 OF 2024
Meenal W/o Parshuram Wagh And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
...
Mr. Ravindra M. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Smt. Chaitali Chaudhari-Kutti, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr. S. I. Shaikh, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
DATE : 4th AUGUST 2025.
PC :-
1. Heard Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Advocate for the petitioners,
Smt. Chaudhari-Kutti, the learned APP for Respondent-State, and Mr.
Shaikh, the learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The petitioner is
taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission, with the consent of
the parties.
2. The petitioners are the original accused Nos. 5 and 6 in complaint
filed by Respondent No.2, have approached this Court challenging the
Ethape
(2) 47-WP-1113-2024
judgment and order dated 4th April 2024, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Criminal Revision Application
No. 301 of 2023. The revision came to be dismissed by the impugned
order. The revision was filed challenging the order dated 21 st September
2023, passed by the learned JMFC, Court No.10, Aurangabad, issuing
process against the present petitioners and six other accused persons for
the offences punishable under Sections 494 read with 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
3. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint in the Court of learned JMFC,
Aurangabad, stating that she is married to accused No.1, who happens
to be a brother of accused No.5, and brother-in-law of accused No.6.
There is also one son born out of the marriage. The marriage was
performed on 25th December 2011. It is alleged that the accused No.1
was having an affair prior to marriage with one lady. However, no
marriage could be performed with her as she happens to be a person
from different community.
Ethape
(3) 47-WP-1113-2024
4. On 31st December 2022, she received information that the accused
No.1 i.e. Manoj is marrying with accused No.2. She, therefore, went to
one Bungalow namely, Sonai Bungalow in New Shreya Nagar,
Aurangabad. She went to the said bungalow alongwith her father,
brother and one more at around 12:30. They saw a crowd near the
bungalow. In the bungalow, they found that accused Nos.1 and 2 were
wearing new clothes and were about to get married. The other accused
persons were well-coming the guests and distributing the akshada (holy
rise). The accused No.8 is alleged to have chanted Managalashataka.
The informant tried to tell the people gathered there that she is the wife
of accused No.1. There is one child born out of the marriage and the
marriage is still in existence. The other accused persons threatened her
and told her to go out. Inspite of her resistance, marriage was
performed. Poojan of homa (holy fire) was done. They also took rounds
around homa. (holly fire). On that, she filed a complaint on 8 th February
2023.
Ethape
(4) 47-WP-1113-2024
5. The learned trial Judge by an order dated 2 nd May 2020, directed
the police to carry out investigation. The investigation was carried.
Statement of persons came to be recorded, including of the complaint,
her brother and her father. The police, on inquiry, recorded that no
offence is made out and submitted a report to the Court. The learned
Judge, however, issued process against the accused persons. These
petitioners challenged order of issuance of process by filing a revision.
6. The learned Advocate Mr. Deshmukh vehemently argued that no
ingredients are made out of the offence looking to the report submitted
by the police. He submits that when the police has submitted a report
specifically stating that no offence is committed, still the Magistrate
issued a process without recording any justification for taking different
view from the police report. He further submits that looking to the
statements recorded of the witnesses shows that there is no specific
statement made as to how the marriage was performed. It is vaguely
stated that the accused No.1 and 2 performed the marriage. For an
Ethape
(5) 47-WP-1113-2024
offence under Section 494, there has to be a specific allegation. It is only,
thereafter, the Court could have issued a notice. He submits that even
the learned Sessions Judge has not discussed as to on what basis the
Court has come to the conclusion. He thus prays for allowing the writ
petition.
7. In support of his submission, the learned Advocate for the
petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of Abhijit Pawar V.
Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and Anr.1
8. The learned Advocate Mr. Shaikh vehemently opposed the
petitioner. He submits that looking to the complaint itself it is seen that
all the particulars of performance of the marriage are given in the
complaint. There is clear averment about the chanting of Mangalashtaka
and taking rounds around the holy fire. The role of each of the accused
is specifically shown. It is specifically alleged that the present petitioners
were distributing the Akshada to the guests. The present petitioner No.1
happens to be the real sister of the accused No.1 and therefore, had
1 AIR 2017 SC 299
Ethape
(6) 47-WP-1113-2024
complete knowledge that the marriage being performed was the second
marriage of the accused No.1 while his first marriage was still in
existence. He thus prays for rejection of the writ petition.
9. In support of his submission, the learned Advocate for Respondent
relied upon the judgment in the case of Kunwarjee Jivraj Lodhaya Vs.
Bhagchand Motilal Raka2
10. This Court has heard the parties. So far as the complaint is
concerned, it is seen that the details and the particulars of the marriage
ceremony are given. The learned Court, therefore, issued a direction to
the police to submit a report. The police, after recording statement,
submitted its report. It is specifically recorded that no details could be
gathered showing that accused No.1 and 2 were married. It is further
recorded that the complainant could not give any details during inquiry
to prove the marriage between accused Nos. 1 and 2. The learned Judge
while passing the order of issuance of process, has only stated that the
Court had gone through the material and it prima facie appears that the
2 LAWS(Bom)1991-11-3
Ethape
(7) 47-WP-1113-2024
marriage has taken place. It is observed that the accused No.1 and 2 are
residing in shared household. The accused No. 3 to 7 were present at the
time of alleged marriage.
11. From the order, however, it is not clear as to on what basis learned
Magistrate recorded the conclusion that the accused No.1 and 2 are
residing in shared household. Assuming that they stayed in a shared
household, it would not lead to any conclusion that they are residing
together only after the marriage. It is also not clear as to on what basis
the Court concluded that the accused No.3 to 7 were present. When
there was specific report of the police recording a conclusion that there
is no material to prove the offence, it was necessary for the trial Court to
discuss as to what lead the Court to conclude or satisfy itself. No such
satisfaction is found.
12. Looking to the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, no
discussion as to what lead the Court to come to the conclusion that the
order passed by the learned Magistrate is legal and proper. It is only
Ethape
(8) 47-WP-1113-2024
stated that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is legal, proper
and correct and no interference is called for. Prior to that, the Court has
only considered as to what is observed by the trial Court in the order.
13. In the case of Abhijit Pawar (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court had
observed that the Court must record its satisfaction about the prima
facie case. It was a case under Section 7 of the Press Act. However, what
is material is the observation that the Court has to show its satisfaction
in the order.
14. So far as judgment in the case of Kunwarjee Lodhaya (supra) is
concerned, there is no question about its proposition. However, in the
said judgment it is observed that the learned Magistrate has to satisfy
himself upon the facts discovered or unearthed by the police, there is
sufficient material for him to take cognizance of the offence and issue
process, the Magistrate may do so without reference to the conclusion
drawn by the investigating officer. It is further stated that the Magistrate
is not bound by the opinion of the police officer about the offence has
Ethape
(9) 47-WP-1113-2024
been made out or not. There is no opinion about this.
15. In the present case, as this Court as already observed, order of the
Magistrate does not show an application of mind. The learned Sessions
Judge has also not discussed the case in sufficient details. As already
observed, though in the complaint, there are averments about the
second marriage. However, while recording the statements before the
police and the Court, there are no particulars of second marriage given.
For all these reasons, this Court is satisfied that a case is made out to
allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order passed by
the learned Sessions Judge. The writ petition, therefore, stands allowed
in terms of prayer clause (C) to the extent of present accused persons.
[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
Ethape
