1 ndm 3 wp.1856.09 ors IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1856 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1861 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1866 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1867 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1868 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1869 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1870 OF 2009 AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1893 OF 2009 M/s. Maan Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and ors. ... PETITIONERS Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr. ... RESPONDENTS -------- Mr. S.G. Rajput for Petitioners. Mr. Yashpal Thakur i/b Paras Kuhad and Associates for Respondent No. 2. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for State. -------- 2 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 16 th April, 2010. P.C. 1 The Petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by the order of issuance of process by the learned Magistrate. According to the Petitioners the date of posting of the notice is incorrectly mentioned as 26 th June, 2007 when as a matter of fact, it is 27 th June, 2007. It is further the contention of the Petitioners that the Petitioners have themselves filed a complaint with the Joint Commissioner of Police regarding the criminal acts committed by the complainant and there is no reply to the same in the affidavit. It is further submitted that the process has been issued without following mandatory requirement under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires an inquiry to be conducted by the Magistrate before issuance of process, if the accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of such Magistrate. 2 The question as to whether the notice is sent on the date as mentioned in the verification or not, is the matter of evidence. The alleged criminal act of the complainant is also a matter of defence. The Apex Court in the case of Subramanium Sethuraman Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. (2004) SC 4711 has held that once the plea of the accused is recorded under Section 252 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the procedure contemplated under Chapter 20 has to be followed, which 3 is to take trial to its logical conclusion. 3 It is not in dispute that in all the cases, the plea of the accused has been recorded and in one case, an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief has been filed and that the cross-examination of the complainant has also commenced. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference at this stage. Hence rejected. [ B.R. GAVAI, J ]