2025:BHC-AUG:26167-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.673 OF 2024

1. Muniroddin S/o. Mainoddin Shaikh,

Age: 45 Years, Occu- Service as Analytical

Chemist, I.T.L. Thane,

R/o. C-402, Suresh Park, Vartak Nagar,

Unnati Garden,Thane (West), Dist. -Thane

2. Shaikh Mainoddin S/o. Shaikh Jamaloddin,

Age: 80 years, Occu.- Nil,

R/o. Khizar Kirana, Vajegaon,

Tal. Nanded, Dist. Nanded.

3. Sharifabi W/o. Mainoddin Shaikh,

Age- 70 Years, Occu.- Household,

R/o. Khizar Kirana, Vajegaon,

Tal. Nanded, Dist. Nanded. … Applicants.

VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra,

Through the Police Station Officer,

Jinsi Police Station, Aurangabad,

Dist. Aurangabad.

2. Nusrat Jahan @ Guddi W/o. Munirrodin Shaikn,

Age-33 Years, Occu.-Household,

R/o. Nahid Nagar, Hattesingpura,

Aurangabad

At present Galib Nagar, Dargah Road,

Parbhani, Tql. Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani. … Respondents.

......

Mr. Anant R. Devakate, Advocate for Applicants

Mr. Abhijeet M. Phule, APP for Respondent No.1 – State

Ms. Gayatri S. Kalve, Advocate h/f Mr. Mahesh V. Ghatge, Advocate for

Respondent No.2

......

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

DATED : 10 SEPTEMBER, 2025 JUDGMENT [Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.]:-

1. Heard both the sides.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the parties, application is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

3. At the outset, we must mention that upon perusing the prayer clause in the petition, which reads thus:-

“(A) The application may kindly be allowed;

(B) The proceedings of R. C. C. No. 984 of 2018 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Court No.11, Aurangabad, Dist- Aurangabad for offence punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 arising out of C. R. No.238 of 2017 registered with Jinsi Police Station, Aurangabad, Dist- Aurangabad dated 07-08-2017, may kindly be quashed and set aside;

(C) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present application, proceedings of R. C. C. No. 984 of 2018 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Court No.11, Aurangabad, Dist- Aurangabad for offence punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, may kindly be stayed;

(D) Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause "C" may kindly be granted;

(E) Any other relief to which the applicants are entitled to in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted.”

4. We informed the learned Advocate for the applicants that in terms of the present ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni vs. State of Maharashtra and another, [Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.13424 of 2025] decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 3^rd September 2025, the application will have to be amended so as to challenge the order of taking cognizance by the trial Court along with incorporating necessary pleadings in support of the said amendment. The learned Advocate for the petitioner argued that the prayer clause ‘B’ in the present application is self-sufficient so as to comply with the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision. He further argued that he is challenging the entire Regular Criminal Case (R.C.C.) itself, and therefore, insisted that he be permitted to argue the petition without amendment.

5. Learned APP informed the Court that though the charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance of the offence has already been taken prior to the filing of the present application, still, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni (supra), necessary amendment will have to be carried out in the petition in terms of paragraph 8 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:

“8. However, from the preamble of the writ petition filed by the petitioner before the Bombay High Court, it is evident that the same sought to invoke the twin jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the