Bombay High Court
VISHVESH SANJAY KHANDGEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The proclamation order violated the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 82 of the CrPC and is therefore quashed.
Summary
The petitioner challenged a proclamation issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalyan, alleging that it was not complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petition claimed that the proclamation was prepared by merely filling blanks in a cyclostyle form and that it specified a period ‘within thirty days’ instead of ‘not less than thirty days’, contrary to the statute. The Court examined the precedent set in Vinay Ramnarayan Singh v. State of Maharashtra, which held that Section 82 is a penal clause and its procedural mandates must be strictly observed. It also referred to Auto Cars v. Trimurti Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd. for the principle that non‑compliance with statutory particulars renders a document invalid. Concluding that the proclamation violated Section 82, the Court quashed the order and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the proclamation issued under Section 82 of the CrPC complied with the statutory requirement of specifying a period ‘not less than thirty days’.
- Whether a proclamation prepared by merely filling blanks in a cyclostyle form satisfies the procedural mandates of Section 82.
- Whether the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class can be upheld despite alleged non‑compliance with Section 82.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 82
- Indian Penal Code — s. 174A
Subjects
- Proclamation
- Section 82
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Procedural compliance
- Quashing order
- Penal clause
- Statutory requirement
Judgment
941 WP-4764-2026.DOC
skt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4764 OF 2026
Vishvesh Sanjay Khandge …Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr.Nilesh Pandey a/w. Mr. Sameer S. Vispute and Mr. Darshan
Patankar, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Prashant P. Jadhav, APP for the Respondent-State.
API M.T. Bandgor, Manpada Police Station, Dombivali East.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr. Jadhav, learned APP for the State.
2. By this Writ Petition, the challenge is to the legality and
validity of order dated 27th June 2025 passed by the learned JMFC,
3rd Court, Kalyan in Criminal Case No. SCC 1288/2025 by which
proclamation has been issued.
3. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
states that by filling the blanks in a cyclostyle manner,
proclamation has been issued. He submits that mandatory
Page 1 of 5
24th September, 2026
941 WP-4764-2026.DOC
skt
provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
has not been complied with, and therefore, the impugned order is
illegal. He submits that in fact pursuant to the said order, the
Petitioner has been arrested on 8th September 2026 and has been
released on 23rd September 2026.
4. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel relied on a judgment of this
Court in the case of Vinay Ramnarayan Singh Vs State of
Maharashtra1 and more particularly on paragraph Nos. 8 and 9
thereof.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Jadhav, learned APP supported the
impugned order.
6. The impugned order is on Page 28 of the Writ Petition.
Relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereinbelow :
1
(2021) SCC OnLine Bom. 4577
Page 2 of 5
24th September, 2026
941 WP-4764-2026.DOC
skt
7. Thus, it is clear that merely by filling the blanks in a format,
the proclamation has been issued.
8. In view of above order, it is relevant to note paragraph Nos.
8 and 9 of the decision in the case of Vinay Ramnarayan Singh
(supra), which read as under :-
Page 3 of 5
24th September, 2026
941 WP-4764-2026.DOC
skt
8. Yet, since Section 82 is a penal clause making the
accused susceptible to punishment under Section 174A of
the Indian Penal Code, the procedure enacted under
Section 82 is to be strictly followed and it cannot be
relaxed. It is settled law that, where a power is given to do
a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in
that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are
necessarily forbidden. In the case of Auto Cars V/s.
Trimurti Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 15 SCC 166, the
Apex Court has held that, non-compliance with the
statutory requirements regarding mentioning of specific
"day, date, year or time" would amount to material
infirmity rendering summons, as well as, their service bad
in law and consequently it cannot be held to be duly
served.
9. In the case in hand, Section 82 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, mandates that the period specified in the
proclamation, requiring a person to appear at a specified
place and time, shall 'not be less than thirty days'. As
against, herein, proclamation published on 18th November,
2021, required the applicant to appear at a specified place
within 30 days (emphasis supplied). Thus, period specified
was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 82.
There lies difference between "NOT LESS THAN THIRTY
DAYS" and "WITHIN THIRTY DAYS". Therefore, as stated
above, Section 82 being penal clause, making the accused
susceptible to punishment under Section 174-A of the
Page 4 of 5
24th September, 2026
941 WP-4764-2026.DOC
skt
Indian Penal Code, the procedure enacted under Section
82 has to be followed strictly, which has not been followed
in the case in hand.”
9. Thus, it is clear that the impugned order is contrary to the
mandate of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1963
and the decision of this Court in the case of Vinay Ramnarayan
Singh (supra).
10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27 th June 2026
passed by learned JMFC, 3rd Court, Kalyan in Criminal Case No.
SCC 1288/2025 is quashed and set aside.
11. The Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 5 of 5
24th September, 2026
Checking your session…