Bombay High Court

RAJKOT NAGARIK SAHAKARI BANK THROUGH MR SURESH MARUTI PATILversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 6 October 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The discretionary order was exercised reasonably and therefore stands.

Summary

The petitioner, Rajkot Nagarik Sahakari Bank, challenged an order dated 19 March 2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) of Vikhroli, which allowed the petitioner's application but imposed a cost of Rs.20,000 to be paid to Accused No.6, an under‑trial prisoner, for her prison expenses. The petition alleged that the order was illegal and invalid. The High Court examined whether the JMFC had exercised its discretionary power lawfully in directing the petitioner to bear costs for the accused. It held that the discretion was exercised in a reasonable manner and there was no ground for interference. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without any alteration to the impugned order.

Issues considered

Whether the JMFC's discretionary order imposing costs on the petitioner to be paid to an under‑trial accused is legally valid.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the JMFC's exercise of discretion under the criminal procedure.

Subjects

discretionary powers
costs order
criminal procedure
writ petition
judicial review

Judgment

                                            32-WP (CRI)-3260-2025.DOC

                                                           Akash Tayde




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
           CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3260 OF 2025


Rajkot Nagarik Sahakari Bank Through               …Petitioner
Mr Suresh Maruti Patil
      Versus
State of Maharashtra                               …Respondent



Mr. Himanshu Mane i/b Prakash Salsingikar, for the Petitioner.
Ms. S. M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent-State.


                       CORAM:      MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                       DATED :     06th OCTOBER 2026
PC:-


1.     Heard Mr. Mane, learned Counsel appearing for the

Petitioner and Ms. Yadav, learned APP appearing for the

Respondent-State.



2.     By this Petition, the Petitioner challenges the legality and

validity of the order dated 19th March 2025 passed by the learned

JMFC, 50th Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai, whereby the application

bearing Exhibit-114, filed by the present Petitioner has been

allowed by imposing costs of Rs.20,000/-.




                                 Page 1
                                              32-WP (CRI)-3260-2025.DOC

                                                             Akash Tayde




3.    As various applications have been filed on behalf of the

Petitioner who is the Original Complainant stating that PW-1 is not

available, by the impugned order, an application bearing Exhibit-

114 filed by the Petitioner has been allowed, subject to costs of

Rs.20,000/-. The learned JMFC has specifically made it clear that

the said costs are to be paid to Accused No.6 as she is an undertrial

prisoner and the said costs is to be utilized towards her expenses in

Byculla Women Prison.



4.    As a discretionary order has been passed by the learned

JMFC of allowing the application by imposing costs of Rs.20,000/-

and as the discretion has been exercised in reasonable manner, no

interference in the impugned order is warranted.



5.    Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.




                                          [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]




                                Page 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.