5-apl-991-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 991 OF 2023 Aruna Pradeep Rathi …Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Rahul Moghe i/b Ms. Kalyani Rathod, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. P. H. Gaikwad, APP for the Respondent/State. Adv. Karim Pathan a/w Adv. Shane Illahi Turky /w Adv. Fardeen Shaikh, Mr. Fazal Shaikh, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Adv. Aditya Mithe a/w Adv. Yashratan S., Adv. Esha Joshi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 6 to 10. CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 02.02.2026. P.C. : 1. This application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code takes exception to the order dated 14.06.2023 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 64th Court, at Esplanade, Mumbai, in C.C.No. 646/Misc/2022. 2. By the order impugned, the learned Magistrate has returned the complaint filed by the applicant for want of jurisdiction. Pramod S.Lakare 1/5 5-apl-991-2023.doc 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents and learned APP for the Respondent-State. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has filed the complaint against respondent Nos.2 to 10 for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 474, 409 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate after recording the verification and hearing the applicant by order dated 30.09.2022 postponed the issuance of process and directed the investigation by police under Section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is submitted that pursuant to the said order, on 30.01.2023 the police submitted the report that the respondent Nos. 2 to 10 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 409, 465, 467, 468 & 474 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate thereafter heard the matter on the point of issuance of process. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate however instead of passing the order in terms of Section 203 or Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, by the order impugned, returned the Pramod S.Lakare 2/5 5-apl-991-2023.doc complaint for want of jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that after taking cognizance, the complaint can not be returned for want of jurisdiction. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devendra Kishanlal Dagalia vs. Dwarkesh Diamonds Private Limited and Ors1. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devendra Kishanlal Dagalia vs. Dwarkesh Diamonds Private Limited and Ors2 has observed that Section 201 of the Criminal Procedure Code lays down the procedure to be followed by the Magistrate not competent to take cognizance of the offence. If the complaint is made to a Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of the complaint he shall return the complaint for its presentation before the proper Court and if the complaint is not in writing, direct the complainant to move before the proper Court. 1 (2014) 2 SCC 246 2 (2014) 2 SCC 246 Pramod S.Lakare 3/5 5-apl-991-2023.doc 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code contemplates postponement of issuance of process on receipt of complaint in circumstances mentioned there. If the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he may dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code by briefly recording reasons. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has ultimately held that Section 201 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be applied immediately on receipt of a complaint if the Magistrate is not competent to take cognizance of the offence. Once the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and forms his opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is held that and there is no question of going back following the procedure under Section 201 of Criminal Procedure Code. 8. In the present matter, admittedly, learned Magistrate after taking cognizance directed the investigation by police under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In such situation Pramod S.Lakare 4/5 5-apl-991-2023.doc there was no question of going back to Section 201 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In that view of the matter, the order impugned cannot be allowed to stand. In the result, the following order is passed : O R D E R a) The Application is allowed. b) The order impugned is set aside. The learned Magistrate shall restore the complaint on file and shall proceed to decide it in accordance with the law. c) However, this will not preclude respondent Nos. 2 to 10 from raising the issue of jurisdiction in appropriate proceedings, in case the process is issued against them. [N.R.BORKAR, J.] Pramod S.Lakare 5/5