The Bombay High Court has referred to a Larger Bench the issue of whether petitions seeking quashing of FIRs, charge sheets, or cognizance orders should be heard by a Single Judge or a Division Bench under the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960.
During the hearing, it was noted that while the petitions were pending, charge sheets had been filed and cognizance taken, leading the petitioners to seek liberty to challenge the order of talking cognizance. The Bench took note of a 9 October 2025 order of the Aurangabad Bench in Yousef Yakub Londhe & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2025:BHC-AUG:28389-DB, which had referred similar questions to a Larger Bench concerning whether such quashing petitions fall within the jurisdiction of a Single Judge or a Division Bench.
Clarifying the position, the Bench of Justices Sarang V. Kotwal and Shyam C. Chandak opined that when a judicial order such as issuance of process is challenged, the matter should be heard by a Single Judge, since such challenges fall within judicial review. It added that once the order of issue of process is set aside against an accused, the FIR and charge sheet against that accused cannot survive. The Court also underscored that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC (Now, Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023), are not limited and exercisable equally by both Single and Division Benches.
However, since its earlier view in Cr. WP No.3901 of 2021, dated September 11, 2025, differed from that of the Aurangabad Bench in Yousef Yakub Londhe, the matter has been placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate reference to a Larger Bench to ensure uniformity and clarity on the issue.
Appearances
Mr. Arjun Kadam for the Petitioners.
Ms. Sangeeta D. Shinde APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
