ABDUL GAFFAR QUADRI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these applications can be conveniently decided by this common order. The applicant as also the respondent No. 2, in both these applications, are the same. The questions needing determination are also the same and even the facts are identical. Whenever it would be necessary to refer to the facts, for the sake of convenience, reference shall be made to the facts of the Criminal Application No. 2883/2013 only.

(2.) Only one contention has been advanced on behalf of the applicant. It is that 'though issue of process has been postponed and investigation by the Police under Section 202 of the Code had been ordered, the process has been issued without taking into consideration the report of investigation, which had been received.

(3.) I have gone through the order issuing process. It does not mention anything about the police report. On the contrary one of the sentences in the order reads as "the offences in question have been specifically made out in the 'complaint'" . This aspect was noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the Revision proceedings, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that though there was no reference in the order to the Police report, it could not be said that the impugned order was not proper. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that "it is settled law that for order of issuance of process, no detailed order is required.