Facts: The Petitioners, who are the parents-in-law of Respondent No. 2, were aggrieved by a criminal proceeding initiated against them. The marriage between the Petitioners' son and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized in 2016, but matrimonial discord led to divorce proceedings in 2021. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 filed a criminal complaint alleging harassment. On 19.04.2024, the Metropolitan Magistrate issued process against the Petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 498A (cruelty) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Petitioners challenged this order, contending it was issued mechanically without proper judicial consideration of the facts or evidence.
Procedural Posture: The Petitioners approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under its writ jurisdiction (Criminal Writ Petition No. 1716 of 2025) seeking to quash the Magistrate's order and the entire criminal proceeding.
Issue: Whether the order of the Magistrate issuing process against the Petitioners was legally sustainable, and whether the High Court should quash the entire proceedings or remand the matter for fresh consideration.
Holding: The High Court held that the impugned order was illegal as it lacked application of mind. It quashed the order but refused to dismiss the entire criminal case, remitting the matter to the Magistrate for fresh consideration.
Reasoning: The Court relied on established precedents, including "Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate", which emphasize that summoning an accused is a serious matter and cannot be done mechanically. While a Magistrate is not required to pass a detailed "speaking order" at the stage of issuing process, the record must reflect a prima facie satisfaction based on a perusal of the complaint and evidence. The Court found that the impugned order merely stated it perused the police report and verification statement without indicating any examination of the nature of the allegations. However, the Court declined to quash the entire proceeding on merits, noting that the "scheme of BNSS" and previous rulings suggest that the initial responsibility of deciding whether to issue process lies with the Magistrate. Remanding the matter ensures that judicial discretion is properly exercised at the appropriate level without causing injustice to the complainant.