sg 902.wp1666-24.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Writ Petition No.1666 of 2024 Avian Julius Silveria Aged about: 27 years, An adult Indian Inhabitant, Having Address at: House No.04,Old Barampur, Near St. Michael’s Church, Vasai Road West, District : Palghar, Maharashtra, Mobile N0.+91-7875089271 Email Id: Avina.silveria @gmail.com … Petitioner versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, (Through the office of Public Prosecutor, High Court, A.S., Mumbai). 2. The Senior Inspector of Police (Vasai Police Station) Having address at Killa Road, Vasai West, District: Palghar, Maharashtra-401 201. 3. Ivy Lisbon Colaso, Aged about: 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o. House No.87, Dharbhatwadi, Survey No.1, 3 an 13, Near Chankadevi Temple, Taluka: Vasai, District: Palghar, Maharashtra. … Respondents ---- Mr. Dipesh Palwankar, a/w. Ms. Shweta R. Rathod, i/b. Elixir Legal Services, for the Petitioner. Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/ State. __________________________________________________ 18th September, 2026 SMITA JOHNSON GONSALVES Digitally signed by SMITA JOHNSON GONSALVES Date: 2026.09.19 11:07:30 +0530 sg 902.wp1666-24.docx Mr. A.S. Peerzada, a/w. Mr. Rakesh Sawant, Mr. Sudhakar, Advocate Shamiyana H and Mr. Ashish Shukla, i/b. Arhat Legal, for Respondent No.3. ---- Coram: Ashish S. Chavan, J. Date: 18th September, 2026. Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of both parties and taken up for final disposal. Learned Counsel for the Respondents waives service of notice on behalf of Respondents. 2. The Petitioner who was the original Accused has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash and set aside order dated 15.03.2022 passed by the Sessions Court at Vasai. Interestingly, the impugned order arises from a revision application filed by the original complainant against an order releasing the Petitioner for lack of evidence under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the original complainant was not heard by the learned JMFC before allowing the report. 3. Heard Mr. Dipesh Palwankar, learned Counsel for the __________________________________________________ 18th September, 2026 sg 902.wp1666-24.docx Petitioner, Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/ State and Mr. A.S. Peerzada, for Respondent No.3. Perused the record. 4. With the assistance of the respective Counsel, I have perused the order dated 27.10.2021. This order passed by JMFC, Vasai, is an order on the report filed by Vasai Police Station in CR No.89 of 2020, under Section 169 of Cr.P.C. The order records that a report is submitted by the concerned Police Station to release the Petitioner (original accused No.2) and two other accused since there is no evidence against him. It also records that although the say of the original complainant was called for, the complainant failed to file her say. Based on the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, the JMFC Vasai has accepted the report submitted by the concerned Police Station and released the Petitioner. 5. Aggrieved by this order, the original complainant approached the Sessions Court at Vasai by way of a revision application. The contention of the original complainant before the Sessions Court was that he was not heard before the report under Section 169 of Cr.P.C. was accepted by the learned JMFC. Accepting the contention of the __________________________________________________ 18th September, 2026 sg 902.wp1666-24.docx original complainant, the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai, has passed the following order: “ORDER 1. The revision application is allowed. 2. The order Dtd. 27/10/2021 passed by the Ld JMFC in CR No.89/2020 is set aside and quashed. 3. The Ld JMFC is directed to take decision on the 169 CrPC report of the IO afresh after giving notice and hearing to the first informant i.e. the present applicant. 4. No order as to cost. 5. The revision application stands disposed off in above terms.” 6. Appreciating the rival submissions at the Bar, the following facts emerge with clarity. The impugned order arises out of a revision application which is filed at the instance of the original complainant. The limited ground on which the original complaint has assailed the impugned order is that the learned JMFC ought to have granted an opportunity to the original complainant before accepting the report under Section 169 of Cr.P.C. A perusal of the operative order indicates that the learned JMFC is directed to take a decision on the aforesaid report, afresh after giving notice of hearing to the original __________________________________________________ 18th September, 2026 sg 902.wp1666-24.docx complainant. The Petitioner was neither a necessary party in the impugned order nor was he heard in the impugned order. In fact, in the order of the learned JMFC dated 27.10.2021, the Petitioner who was till then the accused No.2 was released for lack of evidence. This order was challenged by the original complainant not on the merits of the case but on the absence of procedural rigour. Thus, the impugned order was arising out of a challenge by the original complainant. The Petitioner (accused No.2) had nothing to do with the impugned order since he had ceased to exist as an accused after the JMFC accepted the report and released him. In fact, the Petitioner was released by virtue of the order of the JMFC and the State not having filed any appeal against the said order, the same had attained finality. Thus, the Petitioner was not aggrieved in any manner by the impugned order. 7. The impugned order has relied on the judgment of Maruti Kaluba More Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.1 of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Even in this petition, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the same judgment to bring home the point that the Magistrate is under obligation to hear the first informant 1 Cri. Revn. Application No.205 of 202 dated 4th February, 2015. __________________________________________________ 18th September, 2026 sg 902.wp1666-24.docx before accepting the discharge as submitted by the Investigating Officer under Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. It is in the light of this position of law that the Sessions Court has remanded back the matter to the learned JMFC. No prejudice is likely to be caused to the Petitioner herein by the impugned order, since he has already been released by the learned JMFC and unless a summons is issued to him, he will not be arraigned as an accused. Even otherwise, I do not see any perversity or illegality in the impugned order. It has correctly recorded the legal position that the learned JMFC ought not to have accepted the report of the Police without giving an opportunity of being heard to the original complainant. 8. In the wake of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and in the light of the fact that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity, the petition is rejected and Rule is discharged. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Ashish S. Chavan, J.) __________________________________________________ 18th September, 2026