2026:BHC-AUG:3948 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

35 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1603 OF 2019 Laxmibai w/o Poonamchand Gangwe Age: Major, Occu: Nil, R/o. Opp. Barrack No.423/424, Near Maya Gas, Ulhas Nagar-1 Dist. Thane … PETITIONER VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra Through P. P. office High Court, Bench at Aurangabad

2. Mannalal S/o Laxman Gangwe Age: 68 years, Occu: Retired, R/o. N. No.5-11-4, Shriniwas, Padampura, Aurangabad … RESPONDENTS .…

Mr. Deepak S. Manorkar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. V. M. Chate, APP for Respondent No.1 – State Mr. A. N. Kakade, Advocate for Respondent No.2 .…

CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.

DATE : January 27, 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of both the sides, heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 25.06.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Revision Application No.286 of 2017, thereby the order dated 09.08.2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.21, Aurangabad, below Exh.48 in Regular Criminal Case No.1149 of 2012, is quashed and set aside and the respondent No.2 / complainant is permitted to add the present petitioner as accused No.3 in the complaint.

3. Respondent No.2 is the original complainant in R.C.C. No.1149 of 2012, wherein he prayed for criminal action against the original accused No.1 Subhash Poonamchand Gangave and accused No.2 Sou. Suman w/o Subhash Gangave for the offences punishable under Sections, 447, 448, 451, 453, 456, 34 of I.P.C., on the ground that, on 13.02.2012, both the accused with the help of relatives of accused No.2, opened the lock of the door of premises which was subject matter of the complaint. It is also not in dispute that after recording evidence before charge, the respondent No.2 / complainant has filed Exh.48 application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., claiming that after the police report is called, it has been revealed that the present petitioner/proposed accused Smt. Laxmibai is involved while breaking upon the lock of said premises. On 09.08.2017, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, passed the order below Exh.48 and rejected the prayer of respondent No.2 for impleading the present petitioner as accused No.3 in complaint R.C.C. No.1149 of 2012.

4. Being dissatisfied with said order, the respondent No.2 / complainant filed Criminal Revision Application No.286 of 2017 under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. On 25.06.2019, the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, passed the impugned order and allowed Criminal Revision Application No.286 of 2017 filed by respondent No.2 and permitted for addition of present petitioner as accused No.3 in the said complaint.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that while passing the impugned order, the revisional Court has not issued notice to the present petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was provided. Therefore, the right of the petitioner is prejudiced for want of opportunity of hearing, hence, the impugned order is illegal and bad in law. It is further canvassed that, while passing the order dated 09.08.2017 below Exh. 48, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, specifically recorded findings that the complainant had never disclosed name of the present petitioner (proposed accused) and evidence produced on record do not reveal about involment of the present petitioner/proposed while commission of the crime. Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly rejected the application. However, the learned revisional Court, without issuing notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing, permitted respondent No. 2 to implead the present petitioner as accused No. 3.

6. In support of these submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the case of Mohit alias Sonu and another Vs. State of U. P. and another, 2013 AIR (SC) 2248, wherein, in paragraph Nos. 29 to 31, the Hon’ble Sup