1 11-Cr.WP-336-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 336 OF 2026 Mohsin S/o Muqeen Ahmad Khan -- VERSUS -- The State of Maharashtra and Others __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders., and Registrar's Orders. Ms. Shweta Chavhan, Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner. Mr. A.M. Kadukar, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : JUNE 22, 2026. Heard. 2. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 31/08/2024 passed by the Special Court for Senior Citizen and District Judge-09 and A.S.J. Nagpur, wherein the revision filed by the present petitioner was dismissed. The said revision was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 12/04/2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No.5, Nagpur, wherein the process and summons are issued against the non- applicant Nos.5 to 8 for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, however, the complaint is dismissed against non-applicant Nos.1 to 4 and 9 to 11. Piyush Mahajan 2026:BHC-NAG:7913 2 11-Cr.WP-336-2026 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is the husband of respondent No.9. The petitioner had filed the complaint with the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for issuance of directions to the concerned police station to register the offence against the respondent Nos.3 to 11 for the offences punishable under Sections 166, 201, 321, 323, 325, 334, 340, 341, 351, 352, 427, 504, 506, 507, 377, 378, 379, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The learned counsel submits that, prima facie, from the allegations made in the complaint, offences are disclosed, and therefore, she submits that, Court ought to have issued process against all the accused persons. She further submits that, the Court cannot go into the truthfulness of the said allegations. The Court ought to have considered the prima facie allegations and issued process against all the accused persons, however, the trial Court has erred in dismissing the complaint against non-applicant Nos.1 to 4 and 9 to 11. The Court has proceeded to issue process against non-applicant Nos.5 to 8 after examination of the complaint, statement of the witnesses and documents. Revision was preferred against the same, however, even the Revisional Court, has not considered the allegations in the complaint made by Piyush Mahajan 3 11-Cr.WP-336-2026 the petitioner, and therefore, she submits that, considering the seriousness of the allegations, both the orders are bad in law, and therefore, petition be allowed. 4. I have heard the learned A.P.P. also. I have perused the complaint filed by the petitioner before the Magistrate. I have also perused the impugned orders. 5. After going through the record placed before me, it appears that, the trial Court while issuing process against the non-applicant Nos.5 to 8 has considered the entire record like complaint as well as the statement of witnesses and documents. It further appears that, after perusal of the relevant record, the Magistrate thought it fit to issue process against the non-applicant Nos.5 to 8 for the offence punishable under Section 323, however, the complaint was dismissed against non-applicant Nos.1 to 4 and 9 to 11. As the said order was under challenge before the Revisional Court, even the Revisional Court after applying its mind has dismissed the revision. It is further to be noted that, while dismissing the revision in paragraph No.7, the Court has observed as under:- “ 7] Applicant has produced certified copy of complaint on record along with Exh.4 at serial Piyush Mahajan 4 11-Cr.WP-336-2026 no.1. Perusal of the said complaint shows that there are specific allegations of assault, against accused no. 5 to 8 only. There are specific allegations of threatening against non-applicant No.3, 4 and 10. There is allegation against non- applicant no.9 that she was shouting at the time of alleged incident took place on 8th January 2022. There is allegation against non-applicant no.11 that being husband of non-applicant no.5, he accepted ornaments and hence committed theft. But in order to prima facie support, above mentioned contentions applicant has not produced sufficient material on record. Therefore, only on the basis of pleadings/ allegations without supporting with sufficient material, process cannot be issued against applicant no.3, 4 and against non-applicant no.9, 10 and 11. The impugned order shows that learned trial court has perused complaint, statement of witness and documents produced by complainant on record. Learned trial court has specifically observed that complainant has made specific allegations against non-applicant no.5 to 8 only and did not make any allegations against remaining non-applicants. Complainant failed to depose exact word of insult. Therefore learned trial court has issued process only against accused no.5 to 8. Advocate for applicant has not pointed out any glaring defect in the procedure or any manifest error on the point of law in the impugned order which is caused flagrant miscarriage of justice. Jurisdiction of trial court to try the case is not disputed. There is nothing on record showing that learned trial court has overlooked material evidence produced by complainant. Therefore for all above stated reasons this revision application is devoid of Piyush Mahajan 5 11-Cr.WP-336-2026 merit and required to be dismissed. Hence, I am recording my finding on point no.1 and 2 in the negative.” 6. In view of the above, I do not see any perversity or error in the impugned orders, and therefore, there is no merit in the petition and same is dismissed. Fees of the appointed counsel be quantified and paid as per rules. [ M.M. NERLIKAR, J ] Piyush Mahajan