(1.) THE instant petition is filed by one Pushpaben Manohar Joshi, (the original complainant) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for calling for the records and proceedings of Case No. 502/ I & R of 1987 of 19th Court, Esplanade, Bombay and for quashing and setting aside the Order dated 11th July, 1989, dismissing the complaint filed by her without issu-ance of the process. The petitioner has also prayed that the order dated 11th July, 1989, rejecting the petitioner's application dated 29.6.1989 for taking action under the contempt of Courts Act against Respondent no.1, be quashed and set aside. The petitioner has impleaded Dr.Pinakin J. Shah and Dr. Mukesh A.Sejpal (Original Accused nos.1 and 2 respectively) as Respond-ents. The petition came to be admitted on 10.8.1989 on which date the High Court issued Rule.
(2.) BEFORE dealing with rival contentions advanced by both sides and examining the merits of the case it is necessary to deal with the two preliminary objections, one raised by the learned advocate of the petition-er Shri Dave and the other by Shri Paranjpe, the Learn-ed Advocate for Respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Dave, contended that inasmuch as the present petition is directed against an Order dismissing the complaint without issuance of process, this court should not give a hearing to Respon-dent nos.1 and 2. Mr.Dave contended that at the stage of issuance of process the accused have no locus standi and as such they are not entitled to be heard in the present writ petition.
(3.) MR .Dave, therefore, contended that by granting audience to Respondent nos.1 and 2, this Court would in fact be allowing the accused to partici-pate at the stage of issuance of process. My attention was also drawn to A.I.R. 1976 S.C. Page 1947 (Smt Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Knojalgi & ors.) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court found fault with the approach of the High Court when it quashed the Order issuing process, after examining the matter on merit and after considering the documents filed by the ac-cused. The Apex Court observed: