908-wp-2261-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2261 OF 2023 Pooja Motilal Pandey …Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors ...Respondents Mr. Irvin D’souza, a/w Mr. Omkar Wani i/b Adv. Aniket K., Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. B. V. Holambe Patil, APP for the Respondent No.1/State. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 & 3. CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 30.04.2026. P.C. : 1. This petition takes exception to the order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay, Mumbai, in Criminal Revision Application No. 664 of 2022. 2. By the order impugned the learned Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the revision filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein and quashed the process issued against them by the learned Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 499 Pramod S.Lakare 1/4 908-wp-2261-2023.doc and 500 of the IPC, in a complaint case filed by the present petitioner against respondent Nos.2 and 3 for the said offences. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Sessions Court decided the revision without service of notice upon the petitioner. It is submitted that the order impugned, therefore, be set aside and the opportunity of hearing be granted to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that in the revision filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the Sessions Court, there was delay and thus an application for condonation of delay was filed. It is submitted that the Sessions Court rejected the said application for condonation of delay and thus writ petition was filed before this Court. It is submitted that this Court by order dated 13.06.2022 allowed the said writ petition. It is submitted that the delay in filing the revision was condoned and the parties were Pramod S.Lakare 2/4 908-wp-2261-2023.doc directed to appear before the Sessions Court on 11.07.2022. It is submitted that thus there was no question of issuing notice to the present petitioner by the Sessions Court however, with an abundant caution the Sessions Court had issued the notice to the petitioner. It is submitted that as the petitioner was found not residing at the address mentioned in the complaint and thus the notice was returned unserved. It is submitted that in the said circumstances the Sessions Court had heard and decided the revision. It is submitted that this Court thus may not interfere with the impugned order. 6. I have perused the impugned order. It appears that this Court directed both the parties to appear before the Sessions Court on 11.07.2022. However, none of the parties had appeared on that day and thus notice was issued to both the parties. Admittedly, the notice issued to the petitioner was returned back unserved. In such situation, the Sessions Court should not have proceeded to decide the revision unless service is complete. The order impugned therefore will have to be quashed and set aside. In the result, the following order is passed. Pramod S.Lakare 3/4 908-wp-2261-2023.doc O R D E R i) The order impugned is quashed. ii) The learned Sessions Court shall decide the Criminal Revision Application No. 664 of 2022 afresh, in accordance with law. iii) The parties shall appear before the Sessions Court on 10.06.2026. 7. Needless to mention that the Sessions Court shall endeavour to decide the Revision Application as early as possible. [N.R.BORKAR, J.] Pramod S.Lakare 4/4