7-CRWP-271-25.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 271 OF 2025 Mahesh Rajendra More Age:- 28 Years, Occu- Business. R/o- Biladi, Tal & Dist- Dhule ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra Through Dhule Taluka Police Station 2. Lalya @ Samadhan Piran Patil. Age:-28 years, Occu:-Business, R/o- Biladi, Tal & Dist- Dhule. 3. Chopdya Nana @ Dnyneshwar Rajendra Patil. Age:-28 years, Occu:-Business, R/o- Biladi, Tal & Dist- Dhule. 4. Aabya @ Dipak Khandu Patil. Age:-28 years, Occu:-Service, R/o- Biladi, Tal & Dist- Dhule. 5. Yogita Dnyneshwar Patil. Age:-22 years, Occu:-Household, R/o- Biladi, Tal & Dist- Dhule. ..RESPONDENTS .... Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for respondent no.1 – State Mr. M.M. Baig, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 5 .... CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. DATE : 17th NOVEMBER, 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. None appears for the petitioner. 2. It appears that on 29th September, 2025, at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was adjourned as a last chance. 1 / 4 2025:BHC-AUG:31508 7-CRWP-271-25.odt Thereafter, the matter was listed on 10th November, 2025. Again, on the said date, at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was adjourned until today as a last chance, and a specific order was passed stating that if the petitioner fails to resolve the matter, it will be decided on its own merits. Despite this fact, no one appears on behalf of the petitioner today. 3. Perused the impugned judgment and orders and the record. 4. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 13th August, 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Criminal Revision Application No. 36 of 2024, whereby dismissed the criminal revision application filed by him and confirmed the order dated 07th May, 2024 passed by learned J.M.F.C. (Court No.5), Dhule (for short, ‘the Magistrate’) in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 816 of 2023, thereby refusing the prayer for issuance of direction for sending the complaint for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr. P. C.’) to the concerned police station. 5. At the outset, it appears that on 31st August, 2023, the petitioner filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate for directing the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P. C. and alternatively, prayed for taking cognisance of the same under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. I would like to reproduce the prayer clause of the application as under :- v- fdzfeuy izksfltj dksM dye 156 (3) vUo;s ek- iksyhl fujh{kd] kqGs rkyqdk iksyhl LVs’ku] /kqGs ;kauk vkjksihafo#n/k Hkk-n-fo- dye 306] 120 (c)] 34 vUo;s xqUgk nk[ky dj.;kpk o lnj xqUg;kpk l[kksy rikl dj.;kpk vkns’k Ogkok- 2 / 4 7-CRWP-271-25.odt c- oSdYisd#u izLrqr fQ;kZnhph n[ky ?ksoqu vkjksihafo#n/k Hkk-na-fo- dye 306] 120 (c)] 34 vUo;s izkslsl b’;q dj.;kr ;koh o vkjksihrkauk lnj dyekvarxZr tkLrhr tkLr f’k{kk o ‘kklu dj.;kr ;kos- d- brj ;ksX; rs U;k;kps gqdqe fQ;kZnhps ykHkkr Ogkosr- 6. Perused the impugned judgment and order. It appears that the learned Magistrate refused to send the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner to appear before him for verification of the complaint. Thus, it seems that the learned Magistrate has exercised its discretion in a proper manner. In such an eventuality, it cannot be said that he has committed any illegality by refusing to grant prayer clause (A). Although the learned Magistrate refused to grant prayer clause (A), he granted alternative prayer as sought by the complainant in prayer clause (B) in the complaint. Therefore, I do not find substance in the contention of the petitioner that the learned Judge has erred in passing the said order. 7. Similarly, I have perused the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule. In paragraph no.9 of the said order, he has categorically observed that “it is within the discretionary powers of the Magistrate to direct investigation as per Section 156(3) of the Cr. P. C. or to go ahead with verification of the complaint, to conduct the inquiry by himself, or to direct any other person to carry out the inquiry. Complainant cannot insist that the Magistrate should pass an order in a particular fashion”, 3 / 4 7-CRWP-271-25.odt and therefore, held that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is just and proper. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the said order. 8. I have gone through the grounds raised in the petition. However, I do not find substance in it as none of the grounds demonstrates that the passing of the orders is illegal or perverse, thereby interfering with the writ jurisdiction. On the other hand, it appears that the orders passed by both the Court, i.e., the learned Magistrate, as well as the Additional Sessions Judge, are just and proper, and no interference is required in them in the writ jurisdiction. 9. As a result, the petition, being bereft of merits, stands dismissed. Inform the order to the learned Magistrate as well as the Additional Sessions Judge, accordingly. No order as to costs. ( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ) SSD 4 / 4