Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Gupta vs Anuradha on 1 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8546 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 1st OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52458 of 2023
SANDEEP GUPTA
Versus
ANURADHA AND OTHERS
___________________________________________________________
Appearance:
Shri Devendra Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].
___________________________________________________________
ORDER
1. This petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C ( section 528 of the
BNSS, 2023) is filed feeling aggrieved by the order dated 24/06/2023
passed in Criminal Revision no. 34 of 2022, whereby learned first
Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur rejected the revision petition and
affirmed the order dated 06/08/2022 passed in RCT No. 718 of 2022,
whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shajapur took
cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 193 read with section
200, 417 and 468 of the IPC against petitioner / accused Sandeep Gupta.
It is requested that petitioner be acquitted of all charges.
2. The exposition of facts giving rise to present petition is as under-
a. Respondent Anuradha (complainant) filed a private
complaint against petitioner Sandeep Gupta (accused) before the
Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shajapur stating that she
was married to Sandeep Gupta on 17/07/2023 at Shajapur. At the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 01-04-2026
16:10:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8546 2
time of marriage, Sandeep Gupta had executed a notarized affidavit
stating that he had never married. In fact, Sandeep Gupta was
already married and divorcee. After sometime of marriage,
Sandeep Gupta started mentally harassing her. Sandeep Gupta was
working at State Bank of India, Branch- Patan. Sandeep Gupta got
her bank account transferred to SBI, Branch- Patan without her
consent. When she came to know, she filed a complaint with the
Superintendent of Police and Home Secretary at Bhopal. She also
submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police,
District – Shajapur. No action was taken, therefore, she filed the
written complaint.
b. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shajapur recorded
statement of the complainant under section 200 of the Cr.P.C and
an inquiry report was sought from the local police station. The
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shajapur passed the summoning
order dated 06/08/2022 taking cognizance of offence punishable
under Section 193 read with Section 200 IPC and Sections 417 and
468 of the IPC against petitioner Sandeep Gupta.
c. Accused / petitioner Sandeep Gupta filed criminal revision
before the Court of Sessions at Shajapur. Learned first Additional
Sessions Judge, Shajapur affirmed the summoning order of the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shajapur and rejected the criminal
revision vide order dated 24/06/2023 passed in Criminal Revision
no. 34 of 2022.
3. Present petition is filed assailing the summoning order dated
06/08/2022 and the affirmation order dated 24/06/2023 on the following
grounds as under:
i) Learned Courts below did not consider the fact that the bank
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 01-04-2026
16:10:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8546 3account of complainant cannot be transferred without her consent.
There is no evidence that the petitioner had transferred the bank
account.
ii) The alleged affidavit was given before the Arya Samaj at the
time of marriage. The petitioner never gave affidavit before the
Judicial Authority / Judicial proceeding.
iii) During short stay of the respondent with the petitioner, she got
an attack of mirgi, which was concealed by the respondent. The
respondent left the house of petitioner after giving threats to file
cases against the petitioner and his family.
iv) The respondent filed a Domestic Violence Act case against the
petitioner on 12/05/2015, which was dismissed in default.
v) The petitioner had filed petition under section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act. He also filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act on 24/08/2015, in which the respondent appeared
after service of notice. The respondent filed a petition under section
9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Bhopal on
19/10/2016. Thereafter, the respondent lodged an FIR against the
petitioner for offence punishable under section 498-A, 504 and 506
of the IPC at Police Station – Shajapur on 23/10/2016.
vi) A decree of divorce was passed by the Family Court on
28/03/2019. The marriage between the petitioner and the
respondent was dissolved.
vii) The respondent never complained about the fact of previous
marriage of the petitioner. The false allegations are leveled against
the petitioner.
On these grounds, it is requested that the impugned order be
quashed and the petitioner be acquitted from alleged offence.
Signature Not Verified
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the grounds
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 01-04-2026
16:10:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8546 4
mentioned in the petition, submits that there is no material on record to
substantiate the fact that the petitioner was instrumental in transfer of the
bank account of respondent from Shajapur to SBI, Branch – Patan, rather
the Bank Officials have specifically informed that the bank account
cannot be transferred without consent of the account holder. The offence
punishable under section 468 of the IPC is not made out as there is no
forgery of documents by the petitioner. Learned counsel further referring
to the evidence of brother of respondent before the trial Court, contends
that the affidavit of marriage was prepared by the brother of respondent,
therefore, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for wrong mention of
the fact. The respondent was well aware of the previous marriage of the
petitioner. She did not allege this fact in any other previous litigation. The
impugned order suffers from patent illegality and impropriety.
5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent referring to the
statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C
and the inquiry report submitted by local police station, submits that the
trial Court committed no error in taking cognizance of alleged offence
against the petitioner on the basis of material available on record. There is
no apparent error in the summoning order which is affirmed by the
Revisional Court. The affidavit of the petitioner clearly states that he did
not marry earlier, whereas he was divorcee at the time of marriage with
the respondent. Present petition is meritless.
6. Heard both the parties and perused the record.
7. In the matter of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P.,
reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690, it was observed that-
Scope of inquiry under Section 202CrPC
12. It is by now well-settled that at the stage of issuing process it is not the
duty of the court to find out as to whether the accused will be ultimately
convicted or acquitted. The object of consideration of the merits of the case at
this stage could only be to determine whether there are sufficient grounds for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 01-04-2026
16:10:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8546 5
proceeding further or not. Mere existence of some grounds which would be
material in deciding whether the accused should be convicted or acquitted
does not generally indicate that the case must necessarily fail. On the other
hand, such grounds may indicate the need for proceeding further in order to
discover the truth after a full and proper investigation.
13. If, however, a bare perusal of a complaint or the evidence led in support of
it shows essential ingredients of the offences alleged are absent or that the
dispute is only of a civil nature or that there are such patent absurdities in
evidence produced that it would be a waste of time to proceed further, then of
course, the complaint is liable to be dismissed at that stage only.
14. What the Magistrate has to determine at the stage of issue of process is not
the correctness or the probability or improbability of individual items of
evidence on disputable grounds, but the existence or otherwise of a prima facie
case on the assumption that what is stated can be true unless the prosecution
allegations are so fantastic that they cannot reasonably be held to be true.
[See : D.N. Bhattacharjee v. State of W.B., (1972) 3 SCC 414 : 1972 SCC (Cri)
564] ]
17. These considerations are totally foreign to the scope and ambit of an
inquiry under Section 202CrPC which culminates into an order under Section
204. [See Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736 :
1976 SCC (Cri) 507]. It is no doubt true that in this very decision this Court
has enumerated certain illustrations as to when the order of the Magistrate
issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside. These
illustrations are as under :
“5. … (1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the
statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at
their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the
complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence
which is alleged against the accused;
(2) Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and
inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused;
(3) Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is
capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on
materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and
(4) Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as,
want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent
authority and the like.”
*********************
23. This Court has time and again reminded that summoning of an accused in
a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a
matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses
to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into
motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that
he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto.
He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the
evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof. It is not that the
Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence
before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 01-04-2026
16:10:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8546 6
the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the
complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of
the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie
committed by all or any of the accused. [See :Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special
Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] .
26. In Legal Remembrancer v. Abani Kumar Banerji, 1950 SCC OnLine Cal
49 : AIR 1950 Cal 437], a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court speaking
through K.C. Das Gupta, J. (as he then was) held that a Magistrate is not
bound to take cognizance of an offence merely because a complaint is filed
before him. He is required to carefully apply his mind to the contents of the
complaint before taking cognizance of any offence alleged therein. The
relevant observations read as under :
“…As I read Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the
subsequent sections, it seems to me to be clear that a Magistrate is not
bound to take cognizance of an offence, merely because a petition of
complaint is filed before him. Mr Mukherji’s argument is that a
Magistrate cannot possibly take any action with regard to a petition of
complaint, without applying his mind to it, and taking cognizance of
the offence mentioned in the complaint necessarily takes place, when
the Magistrate’s mind is applied to the petition. Consequently Mr
Mukherji argues, whenever a Magistrate takes the action, say, of
issuing search warrant or asking the police to enquire and to
investigate, he has taken cognizance of the case. In my judgment, this
is putting a wrong connotation on the words “taking cognizance”. What
is “taking cognizance” has not been defined in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, and I have no desire now to attempt to define it. It seems to
me clear, however, that before it can be said that any Magistrate has
taken cognizance of any offence under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, he must not only have applied his mind to the
contents of the petition, but he must have done so for the purpose of
proceeding in a particular way as indicated in the subsequent
provisions of this Chapter –proceeding under Section 200, and
thereafter sending it for enquiry and report under Section 202. When
the Magistrate applies his mind not for the purpose of proceeding under
the subsequent sections of this Chapter, but for taking action of some
other kind e.g. ordering investigation under Section 156(3), or issuing a
search warrant for the purpose of the investigation, he cannot be said to
have taken cognizance of the offence. My conclusion, therefore, is that
the learned Magistrate is wrong in thinking that the Chief Presidency
Magistrate was bound to take cognizance of the case as soon as the
petition of complaint was filed.”
31. In Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420,
this Court held thus :
“22. …The satisfaction on the ground for proceeding would mean that
the facts alleged in the complaint would constitute an offence, and
when considered along with the statements recorded, would, prima
facie, make the accused answerable before the court. … In other
words, the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance
of each and every complaint filed before him and issue process as a
matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in the order
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 01-04-2026
16:10:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8546 7passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the
complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the
statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation
under Section 202CrPC, if any, the accused is answerable before the
criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused
under Section 204CrPC, by issuing process for appearance.
Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the
satisfaction. … To be called to appear before the criminal court as an
accused is serious matter affecting one’s dignity, self-respect and
image in society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall not be
made a weapon of harassment.”
32. The principle of law discernible from the aforesaid decision is that
issuance of summons is a serious matter and, therefore, should not be done
mechanically and it should be done only upon satisfaction on the ground for
proceeding further in the matter against a person concerned based on the
materials collected during the inquiry.
34. In Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, (2015) 4 SCC 609 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 687],
this Court interpreted the expression “sufficient grounds for proceeding” and
held that there should be sufficiency of materials against the accused
concerned before proceeding under Section 204CrPC. It was held thus :
“53. However, the words “sufficient ground for proceeding” appearing
in Section 204 are of immense importance. It is these words which
amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due
application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against
the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the
order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given
therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case
against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed
reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given
turns out to be ex facie incorrect.” (emphasis supplied)
8. In the case of Mahmood Ali & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
reported in 2023 INSC 684, it is held that:
12. At this stage, we would like to observe something important.
Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the
FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that
such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the
Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.
We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the
accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then
he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the
necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments
made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary
ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just
enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint
alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 01-04-2026
16:10:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8546 8
constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious
proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in
between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section
482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only
to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall
circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the
materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on
hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the
background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes
importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private
or personal grudge as alleged.
13. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522,
a two Judge Bench of this Court elaborated on the types of materials the High
Court can assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction between
consideration of materials that were tendered as evidence and appreciation of
such evidence. Only such material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation
in the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The Court held:-
“5. …Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any
attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court
has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of
the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent
promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to
quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts
to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would
otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the
complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint
is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to
assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made
out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.
6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239,
this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can
and should be exercised to quash the proceedings : (i) where it manifestly
appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g.
want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report
or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not
constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an
offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced
clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the
distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there
is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a
case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not
support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry
whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a
reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is
the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an
instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 01-04-2026
16:10:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8546 9circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all
relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process,
lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to
unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the
section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a
prosecution and bring about its sudden death…..” (Emphasis supplied)
(Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P., (2023) 20 SCC 219 also relied)
9. Section 193 of IPC provides for the punishment for false evidence
as under–
Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial
proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any
stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine;
and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other
case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.–A trial before a Court-martial is a judicial proceeding.
Explanation 2.–An investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding
before a Court of Justice, is a stage of judicial proceeding, though that
investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice.
10. Section 199 of IPC provides for false statement made in declaration
which is by law receivable as evidence as under–
Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration
any Court of Justice, or any public servant or other person, is bound or
authorized by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement
which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not
believe to be true, touching any point material to the object for which the
declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the same manner as if he
gave false evidence.
11. Section 200 of IPC provides for using as true declaration knowing it
to be false as under–
Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true any such declaration,
knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the
same manner as if he gave false evidence.
Explanation.–A declaration which is inadmissible merely upon the ground of
some informality, is a declaration within the meaning of Sections 199 and 200.
12. In case of Jotish Chandra Chaudhury v. State of Bihar, 1968
SCC OnLine SC 6, it was held that-
3. With respect to the learned Judge, he has not considered whether any
advantage was likely to accrue to the appellant for giving the date of birth of
his son Subhas as June 9, 1954, instead of December 12, 1951. As far as the
appeal pending before the learned Single Judge was concerned, it is not
disputed that this change did not make any difference to the decision of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 01-04-2026
16:10:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8546 10question of impleading the minor son as a party or the decision on the question
whether the suit was maintainable or not. Before a person can be punished
under Section 199 IPC, it has to be proved, inter alia, that the false statement is
‘touching any point material to the object for which the declaration is made’.
There is no suggestion that the change of the date of birth touched any
material point in FA No. 227 of 1962. One of the ingredients of an offence
under Section 200 IPC, is that the declaration should be used or attempted to
be used corruptly. It has not been explained to us how the declaration was used
‘corruptly’. Considering that the date of birth was obtained from the school
records, and that the appellant stood to gain no advantage by giving a wrong
date, the learned Single Judge should not, in our view, have directed the
lodging of complaint under Section 199 or Section 200 IPC It is not clear what
other section of Indian Penal Code the learned Single Judge had in view.
13. The material on record is examined in the light of aforestated
propositions of law.
14. The material on record reveals that there was matrimonial discord
between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner had filed
petitions under Sections 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the
respondent on 01.06.2015. The respondent had lodged an FIR at Crime
no. 481 of 2016 of Police Station, Shajapur against the petitioner for
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 of IPC on
23.102016. Later, the petitioner filed application under 13 the Hindu
Marriage Act against the respondent on 23.09.2017. A decree of divorce
between the parties was passed by the Family Court, Bhopal on
28.3.2019. It shows that the parties were involved in conflict and
litigating in the court of law.
15. The affidavit in question was not submitted or corruptly utilised
before any judicial authority or in any judicial proceeding. There is no
evidence to suggest that the complainant/ respondent was misled by the
statement in the affidavit and she would have declined to marry the
petitioner, if she had known about his prior divorce. The respondent never
complained about the alleged affidavit submitted before Arya Samaj at
the time of marriage. The brother of respondent has admitted in evidence
that the affidavits for marriage were prepared by him.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 01-04-2026
16:10:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8546 11
16. There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner had filed any
application for transfer of bank account of the respondent and the account
of respondent was infact transferred at the instance of applicant. The
Chief Manager of State Bank of India, Shajapur had informed the SHO of
Police Station, Kotwali Shajapur vide letter dated 15.0402017 that the
accounts is transferred only at the request of account holder. There is no
material to suggest that the respondent had suffered any wrongful loss for
the reason of transfer of her bank account from SBI branch Shajapur to
SBI branch Patan. Therefore, the offense punishable under section 417 or
468 of IPC is not prima facie made out.
17. Apparently, the impugned complaint was filed with ulterior motive
to wrack personal vengeance against the petitioner over matrimonial
discord between the parties. Further, prosecution of the petitioner would
be an abuse of the process of the Court. The trial Court and the
Revisional Court have committed manifest error in passing the
summoning order dated 06/08/2022 and the affirmation order dated
24/06/2023 without due application of judicial mind to the factual
circumstances of the matter.
18. Consequently, the inharent jurisdiction is invoked to prevent the
abuse of process of the Court and the impugned summoning order dated
06/08/2022 and the affirmation order dated 24/06/2023 with
consequential proceedings at RCT No. 718/2022 pending before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shajapur are quashed.
19. Accordingly, the petition (MCRC no. 52458 of 2023) is allowed.
C.C as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGESignature Not Verified
amol
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 01-04-2026
16:10:49
