Bombay High Court
Bhushan S/O Ganesh Lande vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Malakapur ... on 22 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:9623
18.apl595.2024jud.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 595 OF 2024
Bhushan s/o Ganesh Lande
Aged about 24 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. Dighi (Sonpuri), Tah. Nandura,
District - Buldhana. ... APPLICANT
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Malakapur Gramin,
Tah. & Dist. Buldhana.
2. Sunita w/o Mukesh Kshirsagar
Aged about 42 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. Vitali, Tah. Nandura,
District - Buldhana. ... NON-APPLICANTS
Mr. Dhruv Sirpurkar, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Nitin Autkar, APP for non-applicant No.1/State.
Mr Amol Hunge, Advocate for non-applicant No.2
CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
DATE : 22.09.2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
Heard.
(2) Admit. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of
learned counsel for both the parties.
PAGE 1 OF 6
18.apl595.2024jud.odt
(3) The applicant, before this Court, is the original accused
No.2 against whom the process is issued under Sections 504, 506 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant has challenged the order
dated 25.09.2023 issuing process by invoking inherent jurisdiction of the
Court. The accused No.1 has not challenged the said order.
(4) I have gone through the order dated 25.09.2023, by the
Magistrate which reads thus:
"Perused record. Heard Ld. Advocate for the complainant. The
complainant alleges the commission of offences punishable under
sections 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code at the
hands of accused. The complainant has been examined on oath
U/Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C. Prima facie there are sufficient ground to
proceed against accused for the offences punishable U/s. 504, 506
read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, following order is
passed -
ORDER
Issue process against accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences
punishable U/s. 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code."
(5) According to Mr. Amol Hunge, learned counsel for non-
applicant No.2, recording of reasons are not required while issuing the process.
In order to buttress his contention, he has relied upon the following
judgments:
PAGE 2 OF 6
18.apl595.2024jud.odt
i. Bhushan Kumar & Anr. .v/s. State (NCT of Delhi) and anr., reported in
2012 All.S.C.R 1360
ii. U. P. Pollution Control Board .v/s. M/s. Mohan Meakins Ltd. and ors.,
reported in 2000 ALL MR (Cri.) 1046 (S.C.)
iii. Smt. Nagawwa .v/s. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and ors. reported in
2014 ALL SCR (OCC 225).
According to learned counsel for non-applicant No.2, the reasons
are required to be given only at the time of dismissal of complaint and
therefore, the order passed is perfectly just and proper.
(6) Per contra, Mr. Dhruv Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the
applicant has relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in case of Lalankumar Singh and others .v/s. State of Maharashtra, reported in,
2022 SCC Online SC 1383.
(7) I have gone through the above cited judgments. So far as
contention of Mr. Hunge, learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 is
concerned, that no reasons are required to be recorded is difficult to digest.
Reasons are soul of justice and though no detailed reasons are required, prima
facie application of mind is required to be reflected in the order issuing the
process. Therefore, the judgment cited by Mr. Hunge, learned counsel for the
non-applicant No.2 are not squarely applicable to the case in hands. The
PAGE 3 OF 6
18.apl595.2024jud.odt
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Lalankumar Singh (supra) has observed in
para No. 38 as under :
"38. The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality.
The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether
sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The
formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the
order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are
given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a
prima facie case against the accused. No doubt, that the order
need not contain detailed reasons. A reference in this respect
could be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of
Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, which
reads thus:
51. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the
issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking
cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for
proceeding. This section relates to commencement of a criminal
proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may
be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has
been transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration of
the materials before him (i.e. the complaint, examination of the
complainant and his witnesses, if present, or report of inquiry, if
any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for proceeding in
respect of an offence, he shall issue process against the accused.
52. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of
PAGE 4 OF 6
18.apl595.2024jud.odt
process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not
to be dragged into court merely because a complaint has been
filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate
ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because
he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction.
53. However, the words "sufficient ground for proceeding"
appearing in Section 204 are of immense importance. It is these
words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only
after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for
proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an
opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to
be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the
conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused,
though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori,
the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to
be ex facie incorrect."
(8) In the aforesaid background and considering the dictum
of Lalankumar's case (supra), I am of the opinion that the Magistrate has not
recorded the reason for issuance of process. Hence, I proceed to pass following
order:
ORDER
i. Criminal application is allowed.
ii. Order issuing process passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
PAGE 5 OF 6
18.apl595.2024jud.odt
First Class, Nandura, in Summary Criminal Case No.233/2023 is
hereby quashed and set aside.
iii. The learned Magistrate is directed to decide the question of
issuance of process in accordance with the law considering the dictum
of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalankumar Singh and Ors.
Criminal application stands disposed of.
[RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.]
Prity
Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane PAGE 6 OF 6
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/09/2025 19:36:57
