Bombay High Court
Pramila Shrikant Thite vs Vijay Digambar Badge And Ors. on 22 January, 2026
Author: R.N.Laddha
Bench: R.N.Laddha
Digitally
2026:BHC-AS:3139 signed by
CHITRA
CHITRA SANJAY
SANJAY SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
2026.01.22
14:45:32
+0530
Chitra Sonawane. 25-REVN-582-2007.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Revision Application No.582 of 2007
Mrs Pramila Shrikant Thite
Age: 53 yrs.,
R/at Flat No.12, Plot No.140,
Kapil CHS Ltd, 3rd Floor,
Seven Bunglow, Andheri (W)
Mumbai-400 053. ... Applicant.
Vs.
1. Vijay Digambar Badge
R/at Flat No.11, Plot No.140
Kapil CHS Ltd, 3rd Floor,
Seven Bunglow, Andheri (W)
Mumbai-400 053.
2. Smt Sharda Vijay Badge
R/at Flat No.11, Plot No.140
Kapil CHS Ltd 3rd Floor,
Seven Bunglow, Andheri (W)
Mumbai-4000 53
3. Rupali Vijay Badge
R/at Flat No.11, Plot No.140
Kapil CHS Ltd 3rd Floor,
Seven Bunglow, Andheri (W)
Mumbai-400 053.
4. Ravindra Vijay Badge
R/at Flat No.11, Plot No.140
Kapil CHS Ltd 3rd Floor,
Seven Bunglow, Andheri (W)
Page No. 1 of 5
____________________________________________
22 January 2026
::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2026 21:05:58 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 25-REVN-582-2007.doc
Mumbai-4000 53
5. Shekhar Vijay Badge
R/at Bhagyodaya CHS,
Bldg No.9, Room No.461,
Khernagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai.
6. Pooja Shekhar Badge,
R/at Bhagyodaya CHS,
Bldg No.9, Room No.461,
Khernagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai.
7. Mrs Kamini Raju Kate
R/at Kashish Park,
L-2 Flat No.23, Tin Hath Naka
Thane (W), Dist. Thane.
8. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents.
---
Mr Abhishek Karnik, appointed through Legal Aid Panel,
High Court for the applicant.
Ms SD Shinde, APP for the respondent / State.
Mr Archit Sakhalkar i/by Mr Rajendra Shirodkar, Senior
Counsel for respondents No.1 to 7.
---
Coram : R.N.Laddha, J.
Date : 22 January 2026.
P.C. :
None appears for the applicant. Mr Abhishek Karnik, the learned Counsel present before the Court, is appointed to espouse the cause of the applicant.Page No. 2 of 5
____________________________________________ 22 January 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2026 21:05:58 ::: Chitra Sonawane. 25-REVN-582-2007.doc
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
3. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 28 August 2007, passed by the learned Metropolian Magistrate Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, Mumbai, whereby the accused/ respondents herein were discharged u/s 245 of the CrPC 1973, on the ground that no prima facie case was made out to frame charges under Sections 324, 326, 504, and 506(2) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
4. The prosecution's case, as emerging from the complaint, is that on 2 May 1998, a dispute occurred between the complainant and the accused. On 3 May 1998, accused No.2 is alleged to have committed house trespass and threatened the complainant. On 16 July 1998, 12 February 1999, and 25 March 1999, accused Nos.1, 4, and 5 issued threats. On 9 December 1999, accused Nos.2 and 4 abused the complainant in obscene language.
5. Upon a meticulous examination of the complainant's testimony, it is evident that the only specific incident of assault narrated pertains to 3 May 1998, allegedly involving Page No. 3 of 5 ____________________________________________ 22 January 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2026 21:05:58 ::: Chitra Sonawane. 25-REVN-582-2007.doc accused Nos.2, 3 and 7. However, this version is inconsistent with the prosecution's own narrative which attributes the incident of 3 May 1998 solely to accused No.2.
6. Furthermore, the complainant has failed to disclose the nature, time and place of the alleged assault with sufficient clarity. The identity of the assailants has not been corroborated either by the complainant or by PW 3, Dr Rajendraprasad Tripathi, who examined her on the said date. The medical evidence, as deposed by PW 2, reveals that the injuries were simple in nature and do not attract the rigour of Section 326 IPC. That apart, the complaint was lodged on 17 February 2000, nearly two years after the alleged incident of 3 May 1998. Even assuming the allegations to be true, the offence would fall under Section 323 IPC, which prescribes the maximum punishment of one year. In view of Section 468 (2) (b) CrPC, the period of limitation for taking cognizance is one year. The complaint, having been filed beyond the prescribed limitation is clearly barred and no cognizance would have been taken.
7. As regards the allegation of criminal intimidation and Page No. 4 of 5 ____________________________________________ 22 January 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2026 21:05:58 ::: Chitra Sonawane. 25-REVN-582-2007.doc abuse of subsequent dates, the same are vague, uncorroborated, and devoid of particulars. No independent witness has been examined to substantiate the threats or abusive conduct. The allegations appear to be omnibus and lacking in specificity, thereby failing to meet the threshold of prima facie satisfaction required for framing of a charge.
8. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to assess whether the material on record if unrebutted, would lead to a conviction. In the present case, the evidence on record is not only inconsistent and vague but also suffers from fatal legal infirmities, including the bar of limitation.
9. In light of the above, this Court finds no illegality, perversity, or material irregularity in the impugned order or discharge passed by the learned Magistrate. The revision application is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed and stands dismissed accordingly.
[R. N. Laddha, J.] Page No. 5 of 5 ____________________________________________ 22 January 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2026 21:05:58 :::