( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 408 OF 2006 Sunil s/o Sheshgiri Raichur PETITIONER VERSUS Mrs. Meera w/o Satish Athale & another RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. D.S. Bharuka, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vijay Sharma, advocate holding for Mr. C.P. Sengaonkar and Mr. N.S. Bagwe, advocates for respondent No. 1. Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for respondent No. 2/State. ..... WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 409 OF 2006 Sunil s/o Sheshgiri Raichur PETITIONER VERSUS Satish s/o Madhukar Athale & another RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. D.S. Bharuka, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vijay Sharma, advocate holding for Mr. C.P. Sengaonkar and Mr. N.S. Bagwe, advocates for respondent No.1. Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for respondent No. 2/State. ..... WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 410 OF 2006 ( 2 ) Sunil s/o Sheshgiri Raichur & another PETITIONERS VERSUS Nikhil s/o Satish Athale & another RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. D.S. Bharuka, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vijay Sharma, advocate holding for Mr. C.P. Sengaonkar and Mr. N.S. Bagwe, advocates for respondent No.1. Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for respondent No. 2/State. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 22nd June, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. By consent, the impugned order is set aside in as much as without verification of the complaint, process could not have been issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, as has been done vide the impugned order. 3. The learned Magistrate is directed to record statement of the complainant and thereafter to apply ( 3 ) mind for the purpose of issuance of process and pass necessary orders. The jurisdictional question is kept open for decision by the trial Court and liberty is granted to agitate the same. 4. All the three petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIWP408-409-410-06