1 WP 2181.07.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2181 OF 2007 Mr. D.B. Shetty. ... Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. K.B. Abhyanthaya for the Petitioner. Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Sr. Counsel i/b. Ms. Deepa Kamat for Respondents 2 to 5. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 06th SEPTEMBER 2011. P.C. :- Heard both the learned Counsel extensively. 2. Based on complaint Petition, investigation in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was directed on 1.12.1997. A ‘C’ Summary Report was tendered by the investigator. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Dadar, Mumbai did not accede to the 'C' Summary Report and directed issuance of process on 11.4.2000. 3. Said order is not questioned by the Respondent or by anybody. The controversy revolves to an application moved by the Complainant/Petitioner seeking the trial of the Complaint Petition as a warrant case on police report in terms of Chapter 19-A of Cr.P.C. The learned Judge, by order dated 10.10.2006, 2 WP 2181.07.sxw rejected such prayers. Challenge to the same before the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewri, Mumbai, turned in rejecting the Revision of the complainant and hence present proceedings. 4. Section 238 of Cr.P.C. mandates compliance with Section 207, it conceive in any warrant case instituted on the police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate at the commencement of the Trial, the Magistrate shall satisfy himself that he has complied with the provisions of Section 207. 5. It is clear without leaving any ambiguity or doubt that it was a private complaint petition. The 'C' Summary Report tendered by the Police as stated above was not accepted and the learned Judge issued process. The very order of process will not change colour and complexion to brand the same a police report and contemplate a police case under Section 238 of Cr.P.C. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has discussed import of Section 173(2) is to final report/charge-sheet and therefore, according to the learned Judge, it could not even treated that it was a police report in terms of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. The Order of 10.10.2006 and also of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 6.9.2007 does not call for any interference. Writ Petition rejected. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) 3 WP 2181.07.sxw