1 Criminal Writ Petition No.1110/2010 WITH Criminal Writ Petition No.1111/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1110 OF 2010 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., through Mr. Keshav Dattopant Pathak, Assistant Vigilance Officer, having office at Nanded ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, (Degloor Police Station) 2. Asian Electronics Ltd., A Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Office at D/11, Road No.28, Wagale Industrial Estate, Thane, District Thane. 3. Shri Jinendra Ratilal Shah, Age 51 years, Executive Director, Asian Electronics Ltd., Residing at Krishnabad, 4th Floor, 43, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai 400 026 ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri Subir Kumar, Advocate for M/s Lex Global Legal Consultants for the petitioner Shri N.B. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent No.1. Shri S.P. Deshmukh, Advocate holding for Mrs. C.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3 ..... 2 Criminal Writ Petition No.1110/2010 WITH Criminal Writ Petition No.1111/2010 W I T H CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1111 OF 2010 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., through Mr. Keshav Dattopant Pathak, Assistant Vigilance Officer, having office at Nanded ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, (Degloor Police Station) 2. Asian Electronics Ltd., A Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Office at D/11, Road No.28, Wagale Industrial Estate, Thane, District Thane. 3. Shri Jinendra Ratilal Shah, Age 51 years, Executive Director, Asian Electronics Ltd., Residing at Krishnabad, 4th Floor, 43, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai 400 026 ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri Subir Kumar, Advocate for M/s Lex Global Legal Consultants for the petitioner Shri N.B. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent No.1. Shri S.P. Deshmukh, Advocate holding for Mrs. C.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3 ..... 3 Criminal Writ Petition No.1110/2010 WITH Criminal Writ Petition No.1111/2010 CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 8th February, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2. The order recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nanded in Final Report 100/2008, dated 22.10.2008 and in Case No.62/2008, dated 5.6.2009 by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Degloor are questioned by the petitioner (original complainant). 3. After hearing both the learned counsel, it is accepted position that bunch of several petitions was filed by present petitioner challenging identical orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class on various grounds, wherein, without giving audience to the petitioner as complainant, based on ‘C’ Summary report, the respective Judicial Magistrates, First Class allowed ‘C’ Summary and closed the proceedings. Vide order dated 24.8.2010, in Criminal Writ Petition Nos.793/2010, 794/2010, 797/2010, 4 Criminal Writ Petition No.1110/2010 WITH Criminal Writ Petition No.1111/2010 798/2010 and 799/2010, at the principal Bench, respective writ Petitions were allowed. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, in all those cases were directed to issue notice to the complainant and give opportunity of filing its objection to the ‘C’ Summary report or file a separate petition and thereafter pass reasoned order in accordance with law. 4. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that, the order below Exh. 1 in Final Summary Report No.62/2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Degloor is indeed a reasoned order and consequently, it does not require any further hearing. Counsel may be correct that it is a reasoned order, however, such order is passed only on perusal of ‘C’ Summary Final Report submitted by the investigating officer without giving any opportunity to the complainant/ petitioner to be heard or to deal with the submissions advanced by the investigating officer. The learned Judge apparently was more lean to consider the correspondence while passing the order referred above. 5. Considering above factual matrix and in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in AIR 1985 SC 1285 (Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and another) and AIR 1997 SC 3876 5 Criminal Writ Petition No.1110/2010 WITH Criminal Writ Petition No.1111/2010 (Union Public Service Commission Vs. S. Papaiah and others), coupled with the earlier order referred of this Court, the orders of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, subject of challenge in the respective petitions, are set aside. The learned Judge shall give hearing to the petitioner/ complainant afresh and then pass appropriate orders on its own merits. Petitions allowed to the extent as above. Rule made absolute in above terms. 6. This Court has not expressed any comment on merits of the complaint or merits of the order recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE