Court’s Decision
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, while considering a criminal application, observed that in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra (SLP (Cri.) No.13424 of 2025, decided on 03.09.2025), and a subsequent co-equal Bench decision in Zain Shroff v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition No.3901 of 2021, order dated 11.09.2025), the matter may not lie before a Single Judge. The Court permitted the applicants to amend their petition by 24th September 2025, with the hearing fixed for 25th September 2025ordjud.
Facts
- The applicants had filed a criminal application under Section 482 CrPC.
- During the hearing, the APP informed that cognizance had already been taken by the trial court.
- The applicants’ counsel relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Pradnya Kulkarni and argued that the matter would not lie before a Single Judge but rather before a Division Bench.
Issues
- Whether the present criminal application under Section 482 CrPC should be heard by a Single Judge or a Division Bench in view of the recent rulings.
- Whether the applicants should be permitted to amend their petition before further hearing.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The applicants, through counsel, submitted that as per the ratio in Pradnya Kulkarni (supra) and Appellate Side Rules, the jurisdiction lies with the Division Bench.
- They referred to paragraph 9 of the Pradnya Kulkarni judgment to argue that similar matters should not be placed before different benches to avoid inconsistency.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The APP merely informed the Court that the trial court had already taken cognizance of the matter.
- No substantive counter-arguments were noted at this stage.
Analysis of the Law
- The Court referred to the order of the co-equal Bench in Zain Shroff (11.09.2025), which relied on Pradnya Kulkarni.
- It was noted that petitions invoking Section 482 CrPC, Section 528 BNSS, or Article 227 of the Constitution, being similar in nature, ought to be placed before one particular bench to ensure consistency.
- The roster of the Single Judge specifically mentions Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS, but the Court indicated that jurisdictional placement must be consistent across similar casesordjud.
Precedent Analysis
- Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra (SLP (Cri.) No.13424 of 2025, SC, 03.09.2025) – The Supreme Court clarified the categorization of matters under Section 482 CrPC vis-à-vis the Appellate Side Rules.
- Zain Shroff v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition No.3901 of 2021, Bombay HC, 11.09.2025) – The co-equal Bench emphasized that for consistency, petitions under Section 482 CrPC, Section 528 BNSS, or Article 227 must be assigned to the same bench.
Court’s Reasoning
- The Bench recognized that the legal position following Pradnya Kulkarni and Zain Shroff required consistency in bench allocation.
- Since the applicants sought to rely on this new legal development, the Court allowed them to carry out necessary amendments to their application.
- The matter was adjourned to 25th September 2025, post-amendment.
Conclusion
The Court directed the applicants to amend their petition by 24th September 2025 and provide a copy to the other side in advance. The matter was scheduled for further submissions on 25th September 2025ordjud.
Implications
- This order underscores the importance of bench consistency in cases under Section 482 CrPC and similar provisions.
- Applicants cannot forum-shop between Single and Division Benches; jurisdiction is to be strictly aligned with Pradnya Kulkarni and subsequent rulings.
- The direction ensures procedural uniformity and avoids conflicting orders in similar matters.