1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1622 OF 2007 M/s. Thermax Limited & Ors. .. ... Petitioners. Versus Mr. K.M. Johny & Ors......... .... Respondents. Mr. S. S. Desai for the Petitioners. Mr.Nitin Pradhan for Respondent No.1. Mr. A.S.Gadkari, APP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and S. A. BOBDE, JJ. DATED : 11TH JANUARY, 2008. P.C.: Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pimpri in Regular Criminal Case No. 12 of 2002 on 20th August, 2007. This case has a long history. After a private complaint was filed by the complainant and the matter was referred to the police for investigation, the petitioners chose to file two writ petitions in this Court 2 being writ petition Nos. 209 of 2003 and 443 of 2003. This Court allowed the writ petitions by order dated 10th June, 2003. While holding that the order passed by the Magistrate confirms to the provisions of Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, it found that the Magistrate' s satisfaction was not disclosed and, therefore, it set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the learned Magistrate for reconsideration of the entire prayer as made by the complainant and after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to both the sides. 3. We have gone through the Magistrate's order. He has given well and cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that the complaint discloses cognisable offence. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the High Court passed in the earlier writ petitions has not been complied with by the Magistrate. We have our own doubt, whether at the stage of Section 154 the accused has any right to be heard by the Magistrate or not. But without going into the said issue, we find the learned Magistrate has adhered to the directions given by this Court and has given reasons for coming to the conclusion, in which circumstances ultimately he passed the order. 3 4. In the circumstances, the writ petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (S. A. BOBDE, J.)