‘Use Proper Words, Be Submissive’: Bombay HC Raps Magistrate for Blaming Registry, Delay in 2012 FIR Case

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court recently pulled up a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) for allegedly blaming the High Court Registry for delays in communicating its direction to submit a report in a case where the investigation had been long pending since the registration of an First Information Report (FIR) in 2012.

In doing so, a division bench comprising Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay A. Deshmukh took strong exception to the Magistrate’s language and said, "In fact, when the report has been given by the concerned Magistrate, he had highlighted certain words/statements in bold text unnecessarily and he states that ‘The communication was sent by ordinary post instead by an e-mail, etc.’ He was not within his limits when he used the word ‘instead’.”

“He cannot even suggest as to how the communication should be from this Court to his Court,” the HC added. It also emphasised that the concerned Magistrate had been using such language ever since he has been in charge of the court.

In view of this, the judges cautioned him with respect to the language used, and said, "We, therefore, caution him that, henceforth, in any communication which he would make to the Superiors, he should use proper words and be submissive."

The HC also took note of a reply filed by the High Court Registry, which had been asked to respond to the Magistrate’s claims. The report clarified that there was no delay on the part of the Registry. The direction had been communicated via email on April 15, 2025, and also sent through regular post, with follow-up calls made on May 2 and 3, 2025, to ensure timely submission of the report.

High Court was hearing a criminal complaint filed by petitioner Sunita, who had moved the court in 2012 seeking police action. The Magistrate had then, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), directed the MIDC CIDCO Police Station in Aurangabad to register an FIR and conduct an investigation.

However, the bench noted that even after the registration of the FIR, the police didn’t carry out any investigation in the matter. The concerned Magistrate, who had sent the matter for investigation, had also failed to monitor the investigation.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the bench emphasised that once an FIR is registered, the police officers get all the powers of investigation as contemplated, and therefore, there ought not to have been any difference between the FIRs lodged directly with the police and those registered in view of the order passed under Section 156(3) CrPC.

Importantly,  the HC noted that the Magistrate and his predecessors had failed to monitor the status of the investigation for over a decade. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., the judges reiterated that a Magistrate, after directing an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, is duty-bound to oversee its progress.

Ultimately, the high court directed the Police Inspector, MIDC CIDCO Police Station, to carry out the investigation without further delay and report its progress.

It also directed the Magistrate to follow the mandate laid down in Sakiri Vasu and monitor such investigations in future.

"While getting the report, the concerned Magistrate has stated that he is due for transfer in Annual General Transfer-2025. We direct the learned Registrar (Judicial) to give the copy of this order to the concerned Magistrate, wherever he has been posted, so that it would be helpful to him in future communications to be made by him with the Superiors," the HC added.

Accordingly, the court disposed of the instant writ petition.

Case Title: Sunita W/o. Mohan Korde vs The State of Maharashtra

Read order here: