1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1388 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1389 OF 2009 AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1390 OF 2009 New Tech Forge and Foundry Ltd. & Ors. .... Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents S/Shri Shirish Gupte i/b Hemang Jariwala with Ms Bina Jariwala for the Petitioners. Ms R.V. Newton, APP, for the State. S/Shri Ashok Mundargi with Sunil D'Souza and Manoj Mohantney for Respondent No.2. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED: FEBRUARY 17, 2010 P.C: Heard. Rule. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective respondents waive service of notice. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, 2 Ballard Pier, Bombay in C.C.No.14321/SS/08, C.C.No.11061/SS/08 and 11062/SS/08 on 25-11-2008 and 22-10-2008, respectively. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that the accused are residing beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate who has issued the process. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the amended provisions of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., unless the Magistrate himself had made an inquiry or caused an inquiry to be made by the police machinery, he could not have issued the process and he was required to postpone the matters regarding issuance of process. 4. The contention of the nature as is raised on behalf of the petitioners herein has been accepted by a learned single Judge {Coram: S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) of this Court in Criminal Application No.2640 of 2009 {Capt. S.C. Mathur & Anr. v. M/s. Elektronik Lab & Ors.} with companion matters, decided on 8-1-2010. 5. It is not disputed in the present case that all the accused are residing beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the learned 3 Magistrate who has issued the process. 6. In that view of the matter, the orders directing issuance of process are not sustainable in law. Rule, therefore, will have to be made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). 7. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners be granted liberty to raise the contentions which are raised before this Court in the present petitions. 8. Shri Ashok Mundargi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, submits that since the plea of the accused is already recorded, it is not permissible for the petitioners to raise additional grounds before the learned Magistrate. 9. I find that since the petitions are being disposed of, on pure question of law, without going into the merits of the case, the petitioners deserve to be granted liberty to raise such grounds as are permissible in law before the learned Magistrate, which would be considered by the learned Magistrate in 4 accordance with law. 10. The rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). 11. Since the complaints are pending since 2008, the learned Magistrate would complete the requirements as per the provisions of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. within a period of four months from today. B.R. GAVAI, J.