(1) Criapln109-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 109 OF 2010 Sanjay s/o Madhav Jangam & others APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.S. Bedre, advocate for the applicants. Mr. S.K. Kadam, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. P.S. Pawar, advocate for respondent No. 2. ..... CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J. DATED : 13th APRIL, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard both the sides. 2. It is an admitted fact that the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), while passing the order for issuing process, in the present case, has not referred to the report filed by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, this Court is unable to examine the correctness or otherwise of the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class). (2) Criapln109-10 3. In the result, the impugned order is quashed. The learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) is directed to hear the parties afresh. The complainant is at liberty to file protest application before the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) and thereafter, upon consideration of all the material, a reasoned order be passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. With these directions, the present application is disposed of. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] NPJ/criapln109-10