Bombay High Court
POOJA PANDEYversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- N R BORKAR
Holding
The order allowing the revision was quashed because the Sessions Court proceeded without proper service of notice to the petitioner, and the revision must be reheard afresh.
Summary
The petitioner, Pooja Motilal Pandey, challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge that had allowed a criminal revision filed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 and quashed the process issued against them for offences under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC. The petitioner argued that the Sessions Court decided the revision without serving notice to her, violating the principles of natural justice. The respondents contended that notice was issued but returned unserved because the petitioner did not reside at the address, and that the court had already directed both parties to appear. The High Court examined the record, noted that neither party appeared on the scheduled date and that the notice to the petitioner remained unserved, and held that the Sessions Court could not validly decide the revision without proper service. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Sessions Court to rehear the revision afresh with proper notice, scheduling a fresh appearance.
Issues considered
- Whether the Additional Sessions Judge could validly decide a criminal revision without completing service of notice on the petitioner.
- Whether the procedural lapse warrants setting aside the order quashing the process against the respondents.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 499, 500
Subjects
- defamation
- criminal revision
- service of notice
- procedural fairness
- IPC
- High Court
- writ petition
Judgment
908-wp-2261-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2261 OF 2023
Pooja Motilal Pandey …Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors ...Respondents
Mr. Irvin D’souza, a/w Mr. Omkar Wani i/b Adv. Aniket K., Advocate
for the Petitioner.
Mr. B. V. Holambe Patil, APP for the Respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 & 3.
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 30.04.2026.
P.C. :
1. This petition takes exception to the order dated
14.09.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and
Sessions Court, Greater Bombay, Mumbai, in Criminal Revision
Application No. 664 of 2022.
2. By the order impugned the learned Additional Sessions
Judge has allowed the revision filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3
herein and quashed the process issued against them by the
learned Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 499
Pramod S.Lakare
1/4
908-wp-2261-2023.doc
and 500 of the IPC, in a complaint case filed by the present
petitioner against respondent Nos.2 and 3 for the said offences.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
learned Sessions Court decided the revision without service of
notice upon the petitioner. It is submitted that the order
impugned, therefore, be set aside and the opportunity of hearing
be granted to the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that in the revision filed by
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the Sessions Court, there was
delay and thus an application for condonation of delay was filed. It
is submitted that the Sessions Court rejected the said application
for condonation of delay and thus writ petition was filed before
this Court. It is submitted that this Court by order dated
13.06.2022 allowed the said writ petition. It is submitted that the
delay in filing the revision was condoned and the parties were
Pramod S.Lakare
2/4
908-wp-2261-2023.doc
directed to appear before the Sessions Court on 11.07.2022. It is
submitted that thus there was no question of issuing notice to the
present petitioner by the Sessions Court however, with an
abundant caution the Sessions Court had issued the notice to the
petitioner. It is submitted that as the petitioner was found not
residing at the address mentioned in the complaint and thus the
notice was returned unserved. It is submitted that in the said
circumstances the Sessions Court had heard and decided the
revision. It is submitted that this Court thus may not interfere with
the impugned order.
6. I have perused the impugned order. It appears that this
Court directed both the parties to appear before the Sessions
Court on 11.07.2022. However, none of the parties had appeared
on that day and thus notice was issued to both the parties.
Admittedly, the notice issued to the petitioner was returned back
unserved. In such situation, the Sessions Court should not have
proceeded to decide the revision unless service is complete. The
order impugned therefore will have to be quashed and set aside.
In the result, the following order is passed.
Pramod S.Lakare
3/4
908-wp-2261-2023.doc
ORDER
i) The order impugned is quashed.
ii) The learned Sessions Court shall decide
the Criminal Revision Application No. 664 of
2022 afresh, in accordance with law.
iii) The parties shall appear before the
Sessions Court on 10.06.2026.
7. Needless to mention that the Sessions Court shall endeavour
to decide the Revision Application as early as possible.
[N.R.BORKAR, J.]
Pramod S.Lakare
4/4
Checking your session…