Anjani Kumar Rameshkumar Chaudhari And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.495 OF 2019
1. Mr. Anjani Kumar Rameshkumar Chaudhari Ex-Director, Mahindra Logistics Ltd 1A/1B, 4th Floor, Techniplex-I Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062
2. Mr. Zhooben D. Bhiwandiwala Director, Mahindra Logistic Ltd 1A/1B, 4th Floor, Techniplex-I, Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062
3. Mr. Parag C. Shah Director, Mahindra Logistic Ltd 1A/1B, 4th Floor, Techniplex-I, Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 Digitally signed by CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Date:
2023.10.10 19:57:14 +0530 CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE
4. Mr. Chandrashekar Kandasamy Director, Mahindra Logistic Ltd 1A/1B, 4th Floor, Techniplex-I, Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062
5. Mr. Ruzbeh B. Irani Ex-Director, Mahindra Logistics Ltd 1A/1B, 4th Floor, Techniplex-I, Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062
6. Mr. Sunish M. Sharma Director, Mahindra Logistics Ltd
1A/1B, 4th Floor, Techniplex-I, Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062
7. Mr. Sanjeev H. Aga Residing at 1301 Satguru Sanskar, 3rd Road,Near Almeida Park, Off Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050
8. Ms. Neelam Deo Residing at Apartment No.-4, Fourth Floor, Scherazade Colaba, Dilip Sardesai Chowk, Near Faryas Hotel, Colaba, Mumbai-400005.
Currently at, 113 W Gorgas Lane, Philadelphia, PA 19119, USA
9. Mr. Ajay N. Mehta Director, Mahindra Logistics Ltd 1A/1B, 4th Floor, Techniplex-I, Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062
10. Mr. Vijay Murgesan Nadar Operations Supervisor Mahindra Logistics Ltd 1A/1B, 4th Floor, Techniplex-I Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 ...Applicants/ Ori.Accused Nos.2 to 11
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra through the office of Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bombay
2. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Office of the Assistant Commissioner 'S' Ward, Municipal Office Building, Mangatram Petrol Pump, L.B.S. Marg, Bhandup (W), Mumbai-400078
3. Mr. S. B. Mahajan Adult of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant Assistant Law Officer, Grade-II Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Office of the Assistant Commissioner 'S' Ward, Municipal Office Building, Mangatram Petrol Pump, L.B.S. Marg, Bhandup (W), Mumbai-400078 .... Respondents Mr Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate a/w Mr Aditya Khandeparkar, Ms Aekta Patel, Mr Gaurav Patole and Ms Mayuri Karekar i/b Khandeparkar Law Office for the Applicants.
Ms MR Tidke, APP for respondent No.1-State.
Ms Purnima Kantharia a/w Mr DR Kawale for respondents No.2 and 3.
Coram: R. N. Laddha, J.
Date : 10 October, 2023.
P.C. :- The challenge in this Criminal Application is to the order dated 24.03.2017 of issuance of process by the learned
in CC No.4103367/SS/2017.
2.
Heard Mr Shirish Gupte, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants; Ms MR Tidke, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State; and Ms Purnima Kantharia, learned Counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. 3.
Upon perusal of the Order dated 24.03.2017 ('impugned order') passed in CC No.4103367/SS/2017 by the learned it is apparent that the impugned order is cryptic, unreasoned and passed without application of mind.
4.
The learned Magistrate has affixed a rubber stamp engraved with the following words:
"
Order Perused complaint and documents annexed. Heard.
Prima facie case has been made out against the accused.
Hence, issue process against accused as prayed.
Sd/- Metropolitan Magistrate, 41st Court, Shindewadi, Dadar,Mumbai.
24/3/17"
5.
The Magistrate needs to demonstrate such application of mind by giving reasons as to why the process is issued against the accused. Therefore, the impugned order of issuance of process is liable to be quashed and set aside. However, at the same time, it
must be considered that if the Magistrate did not fulfil his duty, the respondents Nos.2 and 3/ complainant should not be held responsible and should not have to endure any consequences due to the Magistrate's failure. As a result, the impugned order of issuance of a process, in CC No.4103367/SS/2017 by the learned is quashed and set aside, and the learned Magistrate is directed to pass an order afresh on its own merits in accordance with law. 6.
The application, as such, stands disposed of. It goes without saying that, if necessary, the applicants are free to seek legal redress for their grievances, if the occasion so arises. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the case and all contentions of all the parties are left open. R. N. LADDHA, J.