ARUN D NAIK Vs. SURESH NARAYAN SALGAONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, made returnable forthwith.

(2.) The respondent nos. 1 to 4 have filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging commission of offence under section 499 r/w 500 of I.P.C. It appears that the learned Magistrate after recording the verification passed an order dated 14/10/2016 issuing process against the petitioners. That order was challenged by the petitioners before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision application no.116/2016 which was partly allowed on 10/3/2017 and the matter was remanded back to the learned Magistrate for deciding the complaint in accordance with law. The learned Sessions Judge had found that the order dated 14/10/2016 was a non speaking order.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that after the judgment and order dated 10/3/2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, the magistrate without complying with the said direction had issued non bailable warrant which was subsequently cancelled. However, it is pointed out that the learned Magistrate has passed a similar order of issuance of process on 3/11/2017 and 21/11/2017 which are both orders merely recorded in the roznama.