The Bombay High Court has quashed an order passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate issuing process against the parents-in-law of a complainant in a case involving alleged matrimonial harassment. Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe held that the issuance of process is a “serious matter” and cannot be conducted in a mechanical manner without the application of judicial mind to the facts and the law.
Background
The legal proceedings arose from a matrimonial dispute between the petitioners’ son and Respondent No. 2 (the complainant). The marriage was solemnized on December 12, 2016, in Jodhpur. Following matrimonial disharmony in June 2021, the husband initiated divorce proceedings in Jodhpur, which were later transferred to the Mumbai Family Court.
Subsequently, the complainant filed a harassment complaint at the Santacruz Police Station. Based on this, the Metropolitan Magistrate, 71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai, passed an order on April 19, 2024, in Criminal Case No. 06/SW/2022, issuing process against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Arguments of the Parties
Ms. Tasmiya Taleha, learned Advocate for the petitioners, argued that the impugned order revealed a “lack of judicial consideration.” She submitted that the order was issued “mechanically without considering the facts of the case or examining the documents,” rendering it illegal and liable to be set aside.
Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned APP for the State, supported the Magistrate’s order, stating that no interference was warranted.
Mr. Rahul Aarote, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2, contended that the Magistrate had applied his mind, evidenced by the fact that process was limited to specific sections and not issued under Sections 505 and 506 of the IPC. He further argued that if the Court found the order required interference, the matter should be remanded for reconsideration rather than dismissing the entire proceedings, citing the case of Krishnagopal Raghunathprasad Maheshwari and Ors. v. Food Inspector And Anr.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court referred to the settled legal position established by the Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate and Mahmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, observing that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the process of criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course.
The Court noted:
“The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law governing the issue. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof…”
Upon perusing the record, Justice Bhobe found that the impugned order merely stated that the Magistrate had perused the police report and the verification statement. The Court observed:
“The impugned order does not reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law governing the issue. There is no indication in the impugned order that the Magistrate examined the nature of the allegations in the complaint or the supporting evidence, oral or documentary.”
The Court rejected the contention that an application of mind could be inferred simply because the Magistrate limited the sections under which process was issued, noting that the order failed to show explicit judicial discretion.
The Decision
The High Court concluded that the impugned order suffered from the “vice of non-application of mind” and was therefore illegal. While the Court set aside the order, it declined the petitioners’ request to dismiss the entire criminal case, holding that the issuance of process remains within the domain of the Magistrate.
The High Court quashed the order dated April 19, 2024, and remitted the matter to the Metropolitan Magistrate, 71st Court, Bandra, for fresh consideration and further action in accordance with the law.
Case Details:
- Case No: Writ Petition No. 1716 of 2025
- Case Title: Mahavir Singh Charan and Anr vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
- Bench: Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe
