Bombay High Court
RASIK UPENDRA PITALEversusMAHADEV WADATKAR AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- S M MODAK
Holding
The Sessions Judge was correct in quashing the issuance of process as there was no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused under Section 500 IPC.
Summary
The applicant, Rasik Upendra Pitale, sought to challenge the Sessions Judge’s order quashing the issuance of process in a defamation case under Section 500 of the IPC. The complaint alleged that the accused, Mahadev Wadatkar et al., had made defamatory statements in police statements, which the complainant claimed as a cause of action. The Sessions Judge held that the allegations were not defamatory and that the issuance of process should be set aside as a misuse of process. On appeal, the High Court examined whether the court at the issuance stage must consider the accused’s defences and whether the material presented satisfied the prima facie test under Section 204 of the CrPC. The Court concluded that the Sessions Judge correctly applied the test and found no sufficient ground to proceed, thereby dismissing the revision application.
Issues considered
- The court at the stage of issuance of process should consider only prima facie material and not the accused’s defences.
- Whether the complaint alleging defamation under Section 500 IPC establishes a sufficient cause of action to justify issuance of process.
- Whether the Sessions Judge erred in quashing the issuance of process as a misuse of process of law.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 204
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 406, 415, 417, 420, 463, 465, 500
- Right to Information Act
Subjects
- defamation
- issuance of process
- criminal revision
- Section 500 IPC
- misuse of process
- prima facie test
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
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.
Digitally
SEEMA
signed by
SEEMA
KSHITIJ
3. I have read the order of issuance of process dated 19.11.2015.
KSHITIJ YELKAR
Date:
YELKAR 2026.01.22
18:07:55
+0530
Seema 1/5
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 Polic e’ 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
Checking your session…