Bombay High Court
SATYAPAL DASHRATHSINGH CHUNDAWAT AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- MADHAV JAMDAR
Holding
The impugned orders are illegal and perverse for failing to consider the income tax returns of Respondent No.2 and are therefore quashed, with the Exhibit‑2 application remanded to the trial court.
Summary
The petitioners challenged the legality of an order dated 6 October 2023 passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate and a subsequent order dated 30 August 2024 passed by an Additional Sessions Judge, contending that the courts failed to consider the substantial income and loan transactions of Respondent No.2 (the wife). The petitioners relied on Income Tax Returns for assessment years 2021-22 and 2022-23, which showed significant earnings, profits from share trading, and loans extended to various parties. The respondents argued that the impugned orders were lawful and required no interference. The High Court observed that the income tax returns had not been taken into account, rendering the orders illegal and perverse. Consequently, the Court quashed both orders, remanded the Exhibit‑2 application back to the trial court for expeditious disposal, and left all parties' contentions open.
Issues considered
- Whether the orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge are illegal for not considering the income tax returns of Respondent No.2.
- Whether the Exhibit‑2 application should be remanded to the trial court.
- Whether the High Court can stay and set aside the impugned orders.
Subjects
- criminal appellate jurisdiction
- writ petition
- quashing order
- income tax return
- evidentiary consideration
- exhibit-2
- remand
- procedural fairness
Judgment
906-WP-4007-2024.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4007 OF 2024
Satyapal Dashrathsingh Chundawat & Ors. …Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents
Mr. Khush Khandelwal a/w. Mr. Hiren P. Mehta and Ms. Sejal
Manjrekar, for the Petitioners.
Ms. Savita M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Hemant Ghadigaonkar i/b. Mr. Hitendra Gandhi, Ms. Pallavi
Chatterjee and Ms. Lubna L. Shaikh, for Respondent No.2.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 10th JULY 2026
PC:-
1. Heard Mr. Khandelwal, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr. Ghadigaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for
Respondent No.2.
2. By the present Writ Petition, the challenge is to the legality
and validity of the order dated 6th October 2023 passed by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 61st Court, Kurla, Mumbai, below
Exhibit-2 in C.C. No.142/DV/2023 as also to the order dated 30 th
August 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Page 1
Sonali
906-WP-4007-2024.DOC
Sessions Court, Court No.88, Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai in
Criminal Appeal No.723 of 2023.
3. It is the main contention of Mr. Khandelwal, learned Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner that the Respondent No.2-Wife is
having huge income and in fact, she is giving huge amount as loan
to different persons and the same has been completely ignored by
the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court.
To substantiate the said contention, attention is drawn to the
Income Tax Return filed by Respondent No.2-Wife annexed at
pages 232 to 245.
4. Mr. Ghadigaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for
Respondent No.2 submitted that the impugned orders passed are
legal and therefore, no interference in the impugned orders is
warranted.
5. Perusal of the pages 232 to 245 shows that her income is
shown as Rs.4,10,080/- for the Assessment year 2021-2022(page
237). As per the balance-sheet as on 31 st March 2021 submitted by
the Respondent No.2 annexed to the said income tax return, her
Page 2
Sonali
906-WP-4007-2024.DOC
net profit is shown as Rs.3,83,526/-, her salary is shown as
Rs.1,80,000/-, profit from share trading is shown as Rs.8,527/-
and Fixed Deposit interest is Rs.29,643/-. Apart from that, she has
given loan of Rs.2,60,000/- to one Deora Agency (page 241). The
Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2022-23 shows that her
total income is Rs. 2,98,470/- (page 242), the balance-sheet as on
31st March 2022 shows that her net profit is Rs.1,03,536/-, her
salary is Rs.1,80,000/-, her income from sale of shares is
Rs.3,94,142/- and the profit on sale of plot No.5,7,8 is
Rs.1,49,040/- and the bank interest is Rs.15,632/-. The
Respondent No.2 gave loan to Deora Agency of Rs.3,40,000/-, to
one Karan Pal of Rs.1,00,000/- and to one Maganlal Roshan of
Rs.1,02,650/- (page 245).
6. Perusal of the impugned orders show that the said income
tax returns of the Respondent No.2 has not been taken into
consideration.
7. A learned Single Judge has already stayed clause Nos.(iii)
and (iv) of the impugned order dated 6th October 2023.
Page 3
Sonali
906-WP-4007-2024.DOC
8. Accordingly, as the material on record has not been taken
into consideration, the impugned orders are illegal and perverse.
9. Thus, for the above reasons, the impugned order dated 6 th
October 2023 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 61 st
Court, Kurla, Mumbai below Exhibit-2 in C.C. No.142/DV/2023 as
also the order dated 30th August 2024 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court, Court No.88, Mazgaon,
Greater Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No.723 of 2023 are quashed
and set aside and the said Exhibit-2 Application filed in C.C.
No.142/DV/2023 is remanded back to the learned Trial Court.
10. It is clarified that all contentions of both the parties are
expressly kept open.
11. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate is requested to dispose of
the said Exhibit-2 Application expeditiously.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms
with no order as to costs.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 4
Sonali
Checking your session…