ASHOK M. ADVANI AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                                      17. CRI WP-1390-11.odt


Amberkar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION



                              WRIT PETITION NO. 1390 OF 2011

           Ashok M. Advani & Ors.                                   .. Petitioners
                      Versus
           The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                          .. Respondents

                                     ....................
            Mr. Satish Maneshinde, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Yuvraj Dhole &
             Shamice Mansukhani, Advocates for Petitioners
            Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for State
            Mr. P.P. Chauhan i/by Ms. Komal Punjabi, Advocate for Respondent
             No. 2 - Corporation
                                          ...................
                                         CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                         DATE          : AUGUST 21, 2026
           P. C.:

           1.       Heard Mr. Maneshinde, learned Senior Advocate for Petitioners;

           Ms. Newton, learned APP for State and Mr. Chauhan, learned

           Advocate for Respondent No. 2 - Corporation.


           2.       Pursuant to the order dated 14.08.2026, Mr. Maneshinde,

           learned Senior Advocate entered appearance for Petitioners. Petitioner

           Nos. 1 to 9 are Directors of Respondent No. 10 Company - Blue Star

           Ltd. Cause of action against the Petitioners is issuance of process by

           learned Metropolitan Court / Magistrate on the complaint filed by

           Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), copy of which is

           appended at Exh. "A", page No. 21 of Petition.



                                                                                      1 of 4
                                                     17. CRI WP-1390-11.odt


3.    This Court has had the occasion of dealing with such similar

complaints which is a cyclostyled complaint in many such cases. 9

Directors of the Company are arraigned as accused along with the

Company indicting them for putting up one Glow Sign Board

admeasuring 8 feet x 3 feet by displaying the contents "BLUE STAR

METRO AIRCONDITIONER" on the ground that the same is violative

of Sections 328 read with Section 471 of the Bombay Municipal

Corporation Act.


4.    The issue which goes to the root of the matter is with regard to

whether the accused persons namely Directors of the Company and

the Company had indeed put up the concerned sign board or not.

That satisfaction was required to be gone into before issuance of

process and setting the criminal law into motion for indicting the

Petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 328 read with

471 of MMC Act. Contention of Petitioners as advanced by learned

Senior Advocate is that neither the premises of the shop over which

the said Glow Sign Board was put belongs to them nor they have

indulged in any such act. The Corporation has not been able to show

anything to the contrary rather its case is simplicitor based cyclostyled

on the application and the process order that has been issued.


5.    Time and again, whenever criminal law is sought to be set into

motion, this Court has found that such cyclostyled applications, prima

                                                                     2 of 4
                                                          17. CRI WP-1390-11.odt


facie, do not disclose any cause of action qua the persons against

whom such action is sought to be initiated, so as to enable the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate to arrive at the requisite satisfaction for

issuance of process. Such is the case before the Court. Issuance of

process on the basis of rubber stamp for the alleged offences without

stating any reason or being satisfied to that effect cannot be

countenanced. Application for issuance of summons for any offence

regarding infringement of any statutory condition is required to be

dealt with strictly in accordance with law and once such Application

comes before the learned Magistrate, it is the duty of the Magistrate to

ensure that the infringement alleged in the complaint has been indeed

committed by the accused persons or otherwise. The same has to be

examined in accordance with law and that not having been done, the

action of the Corporation cannot be countenanced. Arguable case is

made out on behalf of Petitioners for grant of relief and hence there

can be no impediment in such a case. Hence, Petition is allowed and

disposed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus:-

      "(a)   This Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records and
             proceedings pertaining to the C. C. No. 4200450/SS/2011 filed by
             the Respondents before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 42nd
             Court, Shindewadi, Dadar at Dadar and after examining the legality,
             validity and propriety thereof, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to
             quash and set aside the process issued against the Petitioners vide
             order dated 04/02/2011 passed by Learned Metropolitan
             Magistrate, 42nd Court, Shindewadi, Dadar at Dadar in C. C.
             No.4200450/SS/2011. (annexed at Ex. "A" hereto)




                                                                          3 of 4
                                                              17. CRI WP-1390-11.odt


           6.      Petition is allowed and disposed.


Amberkar                                         [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]


                     Digitally signed
                     by RAVINDRA
           RAVINDRA MOHAN
           MOHAN    AMBERKAR
           AMBERKAR Date:
                     2026.08.21
                     20:14:18 +0530




                                                                              4 of 4