25. Revn 393 of 2017.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 393 OF 2017 Rasik Upendra Pitale ...Applicant Vs. Mahadev Wadatkar and Ors. ...Respondents ***** None for the Applicant Mr. Hitendra J. Dedhia APP for the Respondent-State ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 17th JANUARY 2026 P. C. :- 1. When the matter is called out in the morning session, no one was present on behalf of the Applicant. Hence, kept back. In the afternoon session also no one is present. 2. The Court of the Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai on 24.07.2017 has set aside the order of issuance of process. This order passed by the learned Magistrate for an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. I have read the order of issuance of process dated 19.11.2015. Seema 1/5 SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR Digitally signed by SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR Date: 2026.01.22 18:07:55 +0530 25. Revn 393 of 2017.doc The learned Magistrate was satisfied about sufficiency of the materials. The cause of action for filing private complaint is allegation made by the accused in his statement given to the Police, thereby tarnishing image of the Complainant. The statement was recorded in pursuance to the complaint filed by the Complainant. The Complainant has annexed all the papers alongwith revision application. The statement was given by the Respondent-Mahadev Wadatkar addressed to the D. B. Marg Police Station. In the said statement, the Respondent has alleged that the Complainant is not having any work and he is making false complaint against them. 4. I have also perused the complaint made by the Complainant to the Magistrate Court, Mumbai being the Secretary of Morvi Lane Welfare Association. He has averred about lodging of complaint against three accused persons with D.B. Marg Police station. It is his case that accused were harassing the members of the building for repair work. On 24.09.2014, the Complainant has given written complaint alleging the commission of the offence under Sections 406, 415, 417, 420, 463 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code against three accused persons. His contention is that the Police have recorded the statements of the Seema 2/5 25. Revn 393 of 2017.doc accused. Their copies were obtained by him as per the provisions of Right to Information Act. The imputation levelled by accused in those statements were cause of action. 5. The learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order has observed, “allegations made by the Complainant to the police cannot be termed as defamatory because it was intended to protect their interest”. The learned Sessions Judge further observed that “whether it is in good faith or not, it will be considered at the time of trial, however, it cannot be gathered that it was for any reason other than for protecting their interest.” 6. When this matter was argued on 22.01.2024, the Applicant made submission that at the time of issuance of process, the Court is not expected to look into defences of the accused. He is right. At the time of issuance of process, it is the issue in between the ‘Court’ and the ‘Complainant’. The Court is not supposed to go in detail about the materials. The Court has to take prima-facie view, whether there is material to proceed against the accused. The test is laid down in Seema 3/5 25. Revn 393 of 2017.doc Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court has to consider “whether there is sufficient ground to proceed”? When the trial Magistrate is having the material, that is to say, the complaint made by the Complainant to the D.B. Marg Police Station and the statements recorded by the Police, does it mean to say that the Court has to consider only part material. When the Complainant himself has produced all the materials alongwith complaint, it is bounden duty of the Court to consider those materials. This is not a case wherein accused himself has relied upon some materials. ‘The imputation made by the accused person in their statements to the Police’ is cause of action. The Sessions Judge can certainly consider the material which is the cause of action. Ultimately, in a revisionary jurisdiction, Sessions Judge is justified in quashing the order if it is misuse of process of law. If the accused are required to face ordeal of trial, it will certainly be misuse of process of law. 7. According to the Complainant that imputation defamed him. Whereas according to the accused that imputation was made in good faith and to the lawful authority. I do not think the Sessions Judge has committed wrong in quashing the order of issuance of process. Seema 4/5 25. Revn 393 of 2017.doc 8. Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has to be read alongwith exceptions. I do not find there is any illegality committed by the Sessions Judge in passing the impugned order. I find no merit in the revision application. Hence, Revision Application is dismissed. 9. Pending interim application, if any, also stands disposed of. (S. M. MODAK, J.) Seema 5/5