1 APPLN3845_09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3845 OF 2009 Mahfuz Hasan Khan ... Applicant Versus Anand Laxman Pawar and another ... Respondents Mr. P. B. Patil for the Applicant. Ms Anjali Awasthi for the Respondent No. 1. Mr. Y. M. Nakhwa, APP for the State. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J. THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2011 P. C. : The petition challenges the order dated 15th May 2009 to the effect that the learned Magistrate has directed investigation to be carried out under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Code” for short) against the accused Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 10. 2. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that vide the said order while the learned Magistrate had directed an investigation, insofar as the applicant is concerned, he had dismissed the complaint against accused Nos. 1, 2 and 6 to 9 under Section 203 of the Code. He further submits that both these orders cannot be passed simultaneously. A reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chandrakant @ Raju s/o. Ramakant Navghare Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2009 ALL MR (Cri) page 2959. 2 APPLN3845_09 3. Vide the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has found that insofar as accused Nos. 1, 2 and 6 to 9 are concerned, there was no material to proceed against the said accused, and as such, has dismissed the complaint insofar as those accused are concerned. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant that the said part of the order has been set aside by the Revisional Court. However, I do not find it necessary to go into that issue. 4. While examining a complaint, if the learned Magistrate finds that insofar as some accused are concerned, there is no material to proceed against them, he can very well exercise the power under Section 203 of the Code and can dismiss the complaint against such accused and direct investigation u/s. 156 (3) of the Code insofar as rest of the accused are concerned. Insofar as discharge of other accused are concerned, there is nothing in the Code which prohibits the same. Insofar as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court on which the reliance is placed is concerned, in the said case, the learned Magistrate, by a common order had issued a process and also directed investigation u/s. 156(3) of the Code against the accused. The Division Bench took a view that such an order is not permissible in view of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and set aside the same. The facts of the Chandrakant's case (supra) are totally different than that of the present case. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. Rejected. (B. R. GAVAI, J)