1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Application No.65 of 2008 In Criminal Writ Petition No.2097 of 2004 M/s.Satyawati Chemicals Applicant Vs. Transport Energy Systems Pvt.Ltd. and anr. Respondents Mr.Anant Vadgaonkar for applicant. Ms.S.D.Shinde, APP for State. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. July 2, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Anant Vadgaonkar, the learned counsel for the applicant who was the respondent no.1 in Criminal Writ Petition No.2097 of 2004. Ms.Shinde, the learned APP appears for the State. 2. Criminal Writ Petition No.2097 of 2004 was allowed on 22/8/2007 and this application prays for clarification to the extent that the report under Section 156(3) submitted by the respondent no.2 on 22/7/2004 in C.C.No.62 of 2003 be relied upon in the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the nature of inquiry. 2 3. In the order dated 22/8/2007 I had noted that the police had filed a charge-sheet on or about 22/7/2004 i.e. before the petition was filed on 11/10/2004 and once the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class had exercised his powers to set in motion the machinery under Chapter XV, he could not go back to bring into motion the machinery under Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. and having recorded the verification under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., if the learned Magistrate was not satisfied with the material to issue process and there was necessity to delay the issuance of process, he could have ordered an enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and ors. vs. V. Narayana Reddy and ors. [(1976) 3 SCC 252] [(1976) 3 SCC 252] [(1976) 3 SCC 252]. It was under these circumstances that the order passed on 17/9/2003 directing the enquiry under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was quashed and set aside. It was further made clear that Criminal Case No.62 of 2003 will proceed further on the basis of the verification done on 17/7/2003 and it will be open for the learned Magistrate to follow the further procedure as set out under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. 3 4. In these circumstances, the clarification sought for so as to rely upon the report submitted under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. cannot be accepted. The learned counsel referred to the decision in the case of Jamuna Singh & ors. Vs. Bhadai Shah [AIR [AIR [AIR 1964 1964 1964 SC 1541] SC 1541] SC 1541] and having gone through the said decision, there is no doubt that it does not support the applicant’s case for directions to rely upon the report submitted under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 5. Hence the application fails at the threshold and the same is hereby rejected. (B.H.MARL