Bombay High Court

DATTATRAYA KESHAV PATILversusSUNIL BHIMRAO PATIL (THAKARE) AND ANR

Decided: 17 February 2026
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: R N LADDHA

Holding

A magistrate is justified in issuing process when a prima facie case is established, and such an order cannot be disturbed absent patent illegality or jurisdictional error.

Summary

The applicant, Dattatraya Keshav Patil, filed a criminal revision challenging the order of a Judicial Magistrate that issued process against him under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly cheating a complainant of Rs.2,70,000. The magistrate, after a complaint and police investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, found a prima facie case and issued process. The appellant argued that the magistrate erred in issuing process without a full evidentiary assessment. The High Court held that at the stage of issuing process, the magistrate need only determine whether a prima facie case exists, not conduct a mini‑trial. Finding no patent illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error, the Court dismissed the revision as devoid of merit.

Issues considered

Whether the Judicial Magistrate erred in issuing process against the applicant under Section 420 IPC without a full evidentiary trial.
Whether the revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is maintainable when the magistrate’s order is based on a prima facie case.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 156(3), 397, 401
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 420

Subjects

Criminal revision
Issuance of process
Prima facie case
Section 420 IPC
CrPC Sections 156(3), 397, 401

Judgment

Digitally signed
by CHITRA
CHITRA SANJAY
SANJAY SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
Chitra Sonawane. 2026.02.17
19:53:26 +0530
23-REVN-429-2009.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Revision Application No. 429 of 2009
Dattatraya Keshav Patil
Age 68, Occ. Nil, R/o. 4/B,
Dhondu Ukaji Colony,
Dharangaon, Ammalner Road,
Opp. Dharangaon Naka, Chopda,
District – Jalgaon. … Applicant

Versus
1. Sunil Bhimrao Patil (Thakare)
Age Adult, Occ. Service,
Plot No.7, Guru Kalpa Hsg. Soc.
Gurunagar, Jayabai Colony,
Nashik Road, Nashik.

2. The State of Maharashtra
Notice be served upon the
Govt. Pleader, High Court Bombay. …Respondents
----

Ms ARS Baxi, for the applicant.
None for respondent No.1.
Mr Arfan Sait, APP, for respondent No.2 / State.
----
Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.
Date: 17 February 2026

Page 1 of 4
__________________________________________________

17 February 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 23-REVN-429-2009.docx

P.C.:

By the present Criminal Revision Application, the
Applicant/ Accused challenges the order dated 22 March 2007
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nashik
Road, whereby process has been issued against the Applicant
for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
Respondent/State. With their assistance, I have carefully
perused the records and the impugned order.

3. The record reveals that upon presentation of the
complaint, the learned Magistrate, after considering the
complaint, referred the matter for investigation under Section
156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Pursuant thereto,
the police conducted an inquiry and submitted a report. Upon
consideration of the complaint, and the police report, the
learned Magistrate found that a prima facie case was made out
against the Applicant for the offence punishable under Section
420 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly issued process.

4. The case of the complainant, as set out in the complaint,

Page 2 of 4
__________________________________________________

17 February 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 23-REVN-429-2009.docx

is that the Applicant induced him to part with an amount of
Rs.2,70,000/- as a hand loan and thereafter dishonestly refused
to repay the said amount. The complaint contains specific
averments that the Applicant, from the inception, had the
intention to deceive and cheat the complainant and dishonestly
induced him to part with the aforesaid amount.

5. It is well settled that at the stage of issuance of process,
the Magistrate is required to ascertain whether the complaint
and the material placed on record disclose a prima facie case.
The Court is not required to meticulously evaluate the evidence
or conduct a roving inquiry into the merits of the case. The
defence of the accused cannot be examined at this stage, nor
can the Court undertake a mini-trial while exercising revisional
jurisdiction against an order issuing process. Revisional
jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is limited to examining the correctness,
legality or propriety of the impugned order. Unless the order
suffers from patent illegality, material irregularity or
jurisdictional error, interference is not warranted.

6. In the present case, the learned Magistrate has applied his
mind to the material on record and recorded satisfaction that a
prima facie case under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is
disclosed. The impugned order does not suffer from any

Page 3 of 4
__________________________________________________

17 February 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 23-REVN-429-2009.docx

perversity, illegality or material irregularity warranting
interference by this Court.

7. In view of the above, the Criminal Revision Application is
devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

[R.N. Laddha, J.]

Page 4 of 4
__________________________________________________

17 February 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…