906-WP-4007-2024.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4007 OF 2024 Satyapal Dashrathsingh Chundawat & Ors. …Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents Mr. Khush Khandelwal a/w. Mr. Hiren P. Mehta and Ms. Sejal Manjrekar, for the Petitioners. Ms. Savita M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. Hemant Ghadigaonkar i/b. Mr. Hitendra Gandhi, Ms. Pallavi Chatterjee and Ms. Lubna L. Shaikh, for Respondent No.2. CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 10th JULY 2026 PC:- 1. Heard Mr. Khandelwal, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Ghadigaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2. 2. By the present Writ Petition, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the order dated 6th October 2023 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 61st Court, Kurla, Mumbai, below Exhibit-2 in C.C. No.142/DV/2023 as also to the order dated 30th August 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Page 1 Sonali 906-WP-4007-2024.DOC Sessions Court, Court No.88, Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No.723 of 2023. 3. It is the main contention of Mr. Khandelwal, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the Respondent No.2-Wife is having huge income and in fact, she is giving huge amount as loan to different persons and the same has been completely ignored by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court. To substantiate the said contention, attention is drawn to the Income Tax Return filed by Respondent No.2-Wife annexed at pages 232 to 245. 4. Mr. Ghadigaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 submitted that the impugned orders passed are legal and therefore, no interference in the impugned orders is warranted. 5. Perusal of the pages 232 to 245 shows that her income is shown as Rs.4,10,080/- for the Assessment year 2021-2022(page 237). As per the balance-sheet as on 31st March 2021 submitted by the Respondent No.2 annexed to the said income tax return, her Page 2 Sonali 906-WP-4007-2024.DOC net profit is shown as Rs.3,83,526/-, her salary is shown as Rs.1,80,000/-, profit from share trading is shown as Rs.8,527/- and Fixed Deposit interest is Rs.29,643/-. Apart from that, she has given loan of Rs.2,60,000/- to one Deora Agency (page 241). The Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2022-23 shows that her total income is Rs. 2,98,470/- (page 242), the balance-sheet as on 31st March 2022 shows that her net profit is Rs.1,03,536/-, her salary is Rs.1,80,000/-, her income from sale of shares is Rs.3,94,142/- and the profit on sale of plot No.5,7,8 is Rs.1,49,040/- and the bank interest is Rs.15,632/-. The Respondent No.2 gave loan to Deora Agency of Rs.3,40,000/-, to one Karan Pal of Rs.1,00,000/- and to one Maganlal Roshan of Rs.1,02,650/- (page 245). 6. Perusal of the impugned orders show that the said income tax returns of the Respondent No.2 has not been taken into consideration. 7. A learned Single Judge has already stayed clause Nos.(iii) and (iv) of the impugned order dated 6th October 2023. Page 3 Sonali 906-WP-4007-2024.DOC 8. Accordingly, as the material on record has not been taken into consideration, the impugned orders are illegal and perverse. 9. Thus, for the above reasons, the impugned order dated 6th October 2023 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 61st Court, Kurla, Mumbai below Exhibit-2 in C.C. No.142/DV/2023 as also the order dated 30th August 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court, Court No.88, Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No.723 of 2023 are quashed and set aside and the said Exhibit-2 Application filed in C.C. No.142/DV/2023 is remanded back to the learned Trial Court. 10. It is clarified that all contentions of both the parties are expressly kept open. 11. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate is requested to dispose of the said Exhibit-2 Application expeditiously. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] Page 4 Sonali