[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Kailash Choudhary And 2 Others vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Nandgaonpeth ... on 16 February, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:2997-DB
1 42 APL 1192.24+2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO.1192 OF 2024
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO.194 OF 2024
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO.10 OF 2024
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO.1192 OF 2024
Ms. Swati Choudhary,
Aged about 38 years,
Occupation-IT Professional,
R/o. 1648 Clayfire
dr, cary, NC, United State of
America. .. Applicant
.. Versus ..
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Nandgaonpeth Police Station,
District-Amravati.
2. Sushil Bholasingh Khojare
Aged about 47 years,
Occupation-Private Service,
R/o. Shilpakala Colony,
Shegaon Rahatgaon Road,
Amravati, District-Amravati. .. Non-Applicants
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO.194 OF 2024
1. Ms. Sonal Kailash Choudhary
Aged about 33 years, Occ : Job.
2 42 APL 1192.24+2
2. Mr. Gurdial Singh
Aged about 42 years,
Occ : Job.
Applicant Nos.1 and 2 R/o. 1648,
Clayfire dr, cary, NC, United States
of America.
3. Ms. Smita Agarwal
Aged about 49 years,
Occ : Home Maker,
R/o. 9716 Llsno Estacado
Lane, Austin TX, United States
of America.
4. Ms. Swapna Shah,
Aged about - Major,
Occ : Nursing Professional,
R/o. 224, Annabele Branch LN,
Apex, NC, United States of America.
5. Ms. Dina Sequeira
Aged about years,
Occ : Job. R/o.1344
Soaring silo Way, Apex, NC,
United States of America.
6. Mr. Deepak Sharma,
Aged about 50 years, Occ. Job
R/o. 1413, Tinos Overlookway,
Apex NC, United State of America. .. Applicants
.. Versus ..
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Nandgaonpeth Police Station,
District-Amravati.
3 42 APL 1192.24+2
2. Sushil Bholasingh Khojare,
Aged about 47 years,
Occupation-Private Service,
R/o. Shilpakala Colony,
Shegaon Rahatgaon Road,
Amravati, District-Amravati. .. Non-Applicants
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO.10 OF 2024
1. Mr. Kailash Choudhary
Age 67 years, Occ: Homemaker.
2. Mrs. Shobha Choudhary
Age 59 years, Occ : Homemaker.
3. Mr. Ajay Choudhary s/o Kailash,
Age 40 years,
Occ : Govt. Civil Contractor
Applicant Nos.1 to 3 R/o. 115-EW
Scheme No.94-e Ring Road,
Indore-452001 (M.P.) .. Applicants
.. Versus ...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Nandgaonpeth Police Station,
District-Amravati.
2. Sushil Bholasingh Khojare
Aged about 47 years,
Occ : Private Service,
R/o. Shilpakala Colony,
Shegaon Rahatgaon Road,
Amravati, District-Amravati. .. Non-Applicants
4 42 APL 1192.24+2
Shri Shyam Dewani with Shri Sahil Dewani, Advocates for
Applicants.
Mrs. Deepa I. Charlewar, Additional Public Prosecutor for
Non-Applicant No.1/State.
Shri S.Y. Deopujari with Mrs. Gauri Sumant Deopujari,
Advocates for Non-Applicant No.2.
............
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
DATED : 16.02.2026.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. Applicants in Criminal Application (APL)
Nos.1192/2024 and 194/2024 are the NRI citizens of USA.
In Criminal Application (APL) No.10/2024, the applicants are
the residents of India. In all these applications, the prayer is
common. All these applicants seek to quash and set aside the
order dated 21.7.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-
2, Amravati in Criminal Revision Application No.55/2023.
3. The Non-Applicant No.2 filed application under Section
156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amravati alleging that from the
5 42 APL 1192.24+2
date of marriage, Mrs. Swati Choudhary, with the help of
applicants, harassed him economically since year 2016.
According to him, conspiracy was hatched against him by taking
defamatory photo and demanded Rs.2 crore.
4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amravati
by his order dated 28.3.2023, instead of issuing direction under
Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hold that
the matter be tried as complaint before him under Chapter XV
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So also directed to list the
matter for recording the statement of the complainant and his
witnesses under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. The Non-Applicant No.2, being dissatisfied with the
order passed by the learned Magistrate, has preferred the
Criminal Revision Application No.55/2023. According to him,
considering the allegations which he has made, the police
machinery can only investigate the matter. Accordingly, the
Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Criminal Revision
Application No.55/2023, by his order dated 21.7.2023, allowed
the revision filed by the Non-Applicant No.2 and directed to
6 42 APL 1192.24+2
sent the complaint to the Police Station, Nandgaon Peth,
Amravati for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
6. As per the order of the Additional Sessions Judge,
Police Station Nandgaon Peth registered the offence vide Crime
No.0282/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 380,
384, 385, 420, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code
against the present applicants.
7. In view of this registration of the offence in terms of the
order of the Additional Sessions Judge, the present applicants
approached before this court and seek quashment of the entire
criminal proceedings registered against them in the matter.
8. The main submission of the present applicants is that
before the Additional Sessions Judge, they should have been
impleded as a necessary party to the proceeding as same was
filed against the order of the JMFC dated 28.3.2023. However,
as they were not made party before the Additional Sessions
Judge, they could not get opportunity of hearing and
accordingly the order came to be passed by the learned
7 42 APL 1192.24+2
Additional Sessions Judge without granting them the hearing
opportunity.
9. The applicants, in support of their proposition, has
relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Subhash Sahebrao Deshmukh .vs. Satish Atmaram
Talekar and others, reported in (2020) 6 SCC 625 , wherein in
para 9 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :
"9. The restoration of the complaint by the
Additional Sessions Judge was undoubtedly to the
prejudice of the appellant. The right of the
appellant to be heard at this stage need not detain
us any further in view of Manharibhai observing as
follows: (SCC p. 544, para 53)
"53. We hold, as it must be, that in a revision
petition preferred by the complainant before the
High Court or the Sessions Judge challenging an
order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint
under Section 203 of the Code at the stage under
Section 200 or after following the process
contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, the
accused or a person who is suspected to have
committed the crime is entitled to hearing by the
Revisional Court. In other words, where the
complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate
under Section 203 of the Code, upon challenge to
the legality of the said order being laid by the
complainant in a revision petition before the High
Court or the Sessions Judge, the persons who are
arraigned as accused in the complaint have a right
to be heard in such revision petition. This is a plain
requirement of Section 401(2) of the Code. If the
8 42 APL 1192.24+2
Revisional Court overturns the order of the
Magistrate dismissing the complaint and the
complaint is restored to the file of the Magistrate
and it is sent back for fresh consideration, the
persons who are alleged in the complaint to have
committed the crime have, however, no right to
participate in the proceedings nor are they entitled
to any hearing of any sort whatsoever by the
Magistrate until the consideration of the matter by
the Magistrate for issuance of process. We answer
the question accordingly. The judgments of the
High Courts to the contrary are overruled."
10. The learned counsel for Non-Applicant no.2 has
strongly opposed this application. According to Non-Applicant
No.2, considering the allegations in the matter and the fact that
these allegations can only be investigated by the police
machinery, the Sessions Judge committed no wrong in passing
the order. According to him, even though the applicants would
have been granted opportunity, same order would have been
passed in the matter and, therefore, considering the allegations
which are specific in nature, the indulgence of this court is not
necessary and further the investigation which is going on same
should be continued in the matter.
11. In the backdrop of this legal position, in my opinion,
the learned Sessions Judge ought to have direct the Non-
9 42 APL 1192.24+2
Applicant No.2 to implead the present applicants as a necessary
party to the proceeding, then could have proceed further to
decide the revision but he failed to do this exercise in the
matter.
12. It is further pertinent to note that the documents which
are relied and produced with present application is not a part
and parcel before the Sessions Court, particularly the divorce
judgment between parties dated 11.5.2018, consent order for
alimony and equitable distribution judgment dated 12.3.2018
etc. which are placed on record before this court. As such, due
to non grant of hearing opportunity, same was not came before
Sessions Court and order came to be passed without
considering the documentary proof available with the applicants
in the matter.
13. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion
that the issue can be resolved in the matter if the matter is
remitted back to the Sessions Judge, Amravati to decide afresh
Criminal Revision Application No.55/2023 by granting
opportunity of hearing to the present applicants as well as the
10 42 APL 1192.24+2
Non-Applicant No.2 and reconsider the entire controversy
afresh by the Revisional Court. And after hearing both the
parties, passed the appropriate order in the matter.
14. Accordingly, judgment dated 21.7.2023 passed in
Criminal Revision Application No.55/2023 is hereby quashed
and set aside. Criminal Revision Application No.55/2023 is
remitted back to the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati with
a direction to the Non-Applicant No.2 to implead all the
applicants as a necessary party to the proceeding.
15. The present applicants undertake to appear before the
Additional Sessions Judge on 17.3.2026 personally or through
their Advocates.
16. In view of setting aside the judgment of Revisional
Court, the consequential proceedings of investigation by police
machinery are stayed till the fresh decision of Revisional Court.
The police authorities will act as per the fresh decision of
Revisional Court in the matter.
11 42 APL 1192.24+2
17. With these observations, all the applications stand
disposed of.
(Pravin S. Patil, J.)
Gulande
Signed by: A.S. GULANDE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 21/02/2026 10:15:45
