1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 104 OF 2011 (Radhawallabh Kisanlal Mundhada and Ors. vs. State and anr.) ................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................ CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 12th July, 2011. Heard Mr. J.B.Kasat, Adv. for the applicant and Mr.D.M.Kale, A.P.P. for respondent no.1. The Advocate for the applicant do not want to press prayer clause (a) of the application and seeks liberty to challenge the complaint at the appropriate time in separate proceedings. Liberty is granted. Regarding prayer clause (b) of the application, it is contended that the impugned order dt 3.4.2007 is passed by the learned Magistrate U/s.156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the complaint and had, in fact, recorded verification of the complainant in support of the complaint. Therefore, once cognizance is taken, the learned Magistrate could not have passed order u/s. 156 (3), which can be passed only at a pre-cognizance stage. 2 Reference is made to the ruling in the case of Transparent Energy Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Satyawati Chemicals and another reported in 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 3399 which covers the legal position stated above. Hence, the impugned order which was passed u/s. 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is set aside. Consequently, registration of the First Information Report is set aside. The learned Magistrate may proceed further in accordance with Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Criminal Application is allowed accordingly. JUDGE jais