AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Instant Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein, seeking to quash the order dated 16.06.2026 in CFR No.3428 in C.C.No.523 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur for the offences punishable under Section 118 (1), 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
Sri Shaik Mohammad Ismail, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is the de facto complainant and L.W.1 in C.C. No.523 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur. He further submits that the petitioner filed a petition in CFR No.3428 of 2026, dated 16.06.2026, under Section 362 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 323 of the Cr.P.C.), seeking to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 109 and 308 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Magistrate returned the said petition on 16.06.2026 with the following endorsement:
“Correct provision of law should be mentioned. Hence, this petition is returned.”
Learned counsel submits that mere non-mentioning of an incorrect provision of law does not disentitle the Court from adjudicating the matter. However, he states that he would advise the petitioner to re-present the matter before the learned Magistrate along with all relevant particulars, provision of law and explanations. He further prays that this Court may direct the learned Trial Court to pass appropriate orders on merits.
Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6, submits that the impugned order is merely a return of the petition. However, he also fairly submits that the petitioner may be granted liberty to represent the matter before the learned Trial Court.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, indisputably the petitioner filed the aforesaid petition on 16.06.2026 and that the same was returned on the very same day, mainly on the ground that the correct provision of law should be mentioned.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the order under challenge relates to a mere procedural aspect, in view of the fair submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 6, and more particularly, having regard to the well-settled legal principle held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pruthvirajsinh Nodhubha Jadeja v. Jayeshkumar Chhakaddas Shah1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “it is well-settled law that mere non-mentioning of an incorrect provision is not fatal to the application if the power to pass such an order is available with the court.” Added to those procedural laws are intended to do substantial justice to the parties.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of with the following terms:
The petitioner is at liberty to re-present the matter before the concerned learned Magistrate along with all relevant particulars and annotating provision of law too.
ii) In such an event, the learned Magistrate is directed to pass appropriate orders on merits, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties, in accordance with law.
As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.
Footnotes
- 1.(2019) 9 SCC 533