Chitra Sonawane 904-APL-1306-2017@b connAPL& IAs.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Application No.1306 of 2017 Abhijeet Verma Aged 31 yrs, R/at B-33, Peoples Cooperative,Kankar Bagh, Patna-800 02 … Applicant. Vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra through Public Prosecutor’s office, High Court, Mumbai. 2. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai. N Ward office, Jawahar road, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-77 … Respondents. a/w Criminal Application No.248 of 2019 In Criminal Application no.1306 of 2017 Abhijeet Verma Aged 32 yrs, R/at B-33, Peoples Cooperative,Kankar Bagh, Patna-800 02 … Applicant/Org Accused Vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra through Public Prosecutor’s office, High Court, Mumbai. Page No. 1 of 5 ____________________________________________ 4 December 2025 CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Digitally signed by CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Date: 2025.12.04 17:28:46 +0530 Chitra Sonawane 904-APL-1306-2017@b connAPL& IAs.odt 2. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai. N Ward office, Jawahar road, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-77 … Respondents. a/w Criminal Application No.1305 of 2017 Abhijeet Pawar Aged 24 yrs, R/at Building No.9-B, Flat No.41, Vrindavan Society, Thane (W), Mumbai-400 601 … Applicant/Org Accused Vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra through Public Prosecutor’s office, High Court, Mumbai. 2. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai. N Ward office, Jawahar road, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-77 … Respondents. a/w Criminal Application No.247 of 2019 In Criminal Application No.1305 of 2017 Abhijeet Pawar Aged 25 yrs, R/at Building No.9-B, Flat No.41, Vrindavan Society, Thane (W), Mumbai-400 601 … Applicant/Org Accused Page No. 2 of 5 ____________________________________________ 4 December 2025 Chitra Sonawane 904-APL-1306-2017@b connAPL& IAs.odt Vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra through Public Prosecutor’s office, High Court, Mumbai. 2. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai. N Ward office, Jawahar road, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-77 … Respondents. --- Mr Gaurav Patole i/by Khandeparkar Law Office for the applicants. Mr SV Walve, APP for the respondent / State. None for the respondent No.2/Corporation. --- Coram : R.N.Laddha, J. Date : 4 December 2025. P.C. : Heard Mr Gaurav Patole, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent/State. None for the respondent No.2. 2. The challenge in these Criminal Applications is to the order passed on 26 July 2017 of issuance of process by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 42nd Court, Shindewadi, Dadar, Mumbai, in Cases Nos.4209340/SS/2017. Page No. 3 of 5 ____________________________________________ 4 December 2025 Chitra Sonawane 904-APL-1306-2017@b connAPL& IAs.odt 3. Mr Gaurav Patole, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants, highlighted the order of issuance of process and submitted that the orders lack reasoning and are cryptic. 4. Upon perusal of the order, it becomes apparent that the learned Magistrate affixed the rubber stamp bearing following words ; Order “C.A./ALO Present Case is filed today. Issue Process against the Accused. Issue Summons to Accused. Case is adjourned on 25.10.2017.” 5. After affixing the aforesaid stamp, process was issued. This approach does not align with the appropriate exercise of judicial discretion by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate should indicate the reasons for issuing process against the accused to demonstrate thoughtful consideration. 6. For the reasons stated above, the order of issuance of process is susceptible to being invalidated and set aside. However, it is essential to recognise that the if the Magistrate fails in their duty, respondent/complainant Page No. 4 of 5 ____________________________________________ 4 December 2025 Chitra Sonawane 904-APL-1306-2017@b connAPL& IAs.odt should not suffer consequences due to the Magistrate’s lapse. As a result, the impugned order of issuance of process dated 26 July 2017, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 42nd Court, Shindewadi, Dadar, Mumbai, in Case No.4209340/SS/2017, is quashed and set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to pass an order afresh on its own merits and in accordance with the law. The Criminal Applications stand disposed of accordingly. As a sequel, the pending interim applications also stand disposed of. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the matter and the trial Court shall pass an order afresh on its own merits and in accordance with the law. [R. N. Laddha, J.] Page No. 5 of 5 ____________________________________________ 4 December 2025