Back
2026 Supreme(Bom) 122
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
Mahavir Singh Charan – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 1716 OF 2025
Decided On : 23-03-2026
For the Petitioner:Ms. Tasmiya Taleha, learned Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Rahul Aarote, learned Advocate, Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned App
Magistrate issuing process must apply judicial mind to allegations and evidence; mechanical orders without reflecting such application are illegal, warranting quashing and remand for fresh consideration.
Headnote:(A) Cr.P.C. - Sections 190 and 204 - Issuance of process - Serious matter requiring application of judicial mind to allegations, facts and supporting evidence - Mechanical process without reflection of such consideration invalid - No need for detailed reasons but order must indicate prima facie satisfaction for proceeding - Order issuing process under IPC Sections 498A, 406 r/w 34 set aside for lack of judicial application; remitted for fresh consideration. (Paras 10, 14, 15, 17, 19)
(B) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - High Court not to examine merits or quash proceedings at process issuance stage; appropriate to remand defective order to magistrate - Effective remedies available against process order under BNSS. (Paras 8, 18)
Facts of the case:
Marriage solemnized; matrimonial disharmony prompted husband to file divorce proceedings; wife lodged complaint alleging harassment leading to magistrate issuing process against petitioners in criminal case under IPC Sections 498A, 406 r/w 34.
Findings of Court:
Impugned order dated issuing process quashed and set aside; matter remitted to magistrate for fresh consideration and action in accordance with law.
Issues: Whether magistrate applied mind or issued process mechanically; scope of high court interference in writ jurisdiction at pre-trial stage.
Ratio Decidendi: Magistrate must scrutinize complaint and evidence to form prima facie opinion on offence; order lacking indication of mind application fails judicial discretion and warrants interference with remand rather than merits adjudication or dismissal.
Result: Rule made absolute; writ petition disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of matrimonial dispute and process issuance challenge. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. petitioner claims mechanical process; respondents defend order. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. magistrate must apply mind prima facie before issuing process. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. impugned order lacks mind application; remand appropriate. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. quash order; remit for fresh magistrate consideration. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
1. Heard Ms. Tasmiya Taleha, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned APP for the Respondent – State and Mr. Rahul Aarote, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.
2. By order dated 04.12.2025, this Court took the view that an arguable case was made out to impel the Court to entertain this Petition.
3. Though the Petitioners have raised several challenges regarding the proceedings arising from Criminal Case No. 06/SW/2022 for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereafter “IPC”), pending before the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai, (hereafter “Magistrate”), Ms. Tasmiya Taleha, Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned APP, and Mr. Rahul Aarote have limited their arguments to contest the Order dated 19.04.2024 passed by the Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 06/SW/2022 (hereafter “impugned order”), whereby the Magistrate issued process against the Petitioners.
4. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the parties, heard finally.
5. Material facts relevant for the adjudication of the present Petition are that the marriage between the Petitioner’s Son and Respondent No. 2 (Complainant) was solemnized on 12.12.2016 in Jodhpur. In June 2021, matrimonial disharmony led the Petitioner’s son to file divorce proceedings against Respondent No. 2 in the Family Court, Jodhpur, which were subsequently transferred to the Mumbai Family Court. Respondent No. 2, alleging harassment, filed a complaint before the Senior Inspector in Santacruz West, Mumbai. Based on the complaint filed by Respondent No. 2, the Magistrate issued process on 19.04.2024 under Section 498A , 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC, in Criminal Case No. 06/SW/2022.
6. Ms. Tasmiya Taleha, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, submits that the impugned order, in issuing the process, reveals a lack of judicial consideration by the Magistrate. She submits that the impugned order was issued mechanically without considering the facts of the case or examining the documents. She argues that the impugned order is illegal and therefore liable to be set aside, which should result in the dismissal of the entire proceedings bearing C.C. No. 06/SW/2022. In the alternative, she submits that this Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should consider the case on its merits to determine whether a case for issuance of process has been established.
7. Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned APP for the Respondent – State, supports the impugned Order and submits that no interference is warranted.
8. Mr. Rahul Aarote, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2, submits that the impugned order shows that the Magistrate applied his mind and limited the issuance of process to Sections 498A, 406 read with Section 34 of IPC. He submits that the Magistrate, having not issued process under Sections 505 and 506 of , demonstrates his considered decision. Without prejudice to the above contentions, he submits that if this Court finds the impugned order requires interference, then the matter should be remanded to the Magistrate for reconsideration. He argues that when exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court should not assume the role of the Magistrate in deciding whether to issue process, this responsibility should remain with the Magistrate at the initial stage. He relies on the decision of this Court in the case of Krishnagopal Raghunathprasad Maheshwari and Ors. v. Food Inspector And
