1. The Petitioner has challenged the order of learned additional Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai directing the petitioner to submit his verification upon his complaint being filed before the learned Magistrate. The Petitioner has sought an order U/s.156(3) of the CrPC upon his complaint. This is upon the premise that the learned Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the complaint filed by the Petitioner before any report is submitted by police officer upon his complaint for taking action against Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the complaint who are the police officers. The Petitioner, therefore, claims that though the learned Magistrate can issue an order U/s.156(3) of CrPC, he cannot issue an order for verification of the complaint U/s.200 of the CrPC. It is argued that the order U/s.156(3) is pre cognizance stage and the order U/s.200 is upon taking cognizance.

2. The Respondents claim that the Petitioner's case has been previously seen and does not require fresh consideration.

3. The complaint arises upon the Petitioner's case of wrongful detention in police custody for 7 days pursuant to a false and malicious complaint of Respondent No.1.

4. The Petitioner was a Director along with his brother, father and other Directors in one M/s. Vardhaman Dystuff Industries Ltd.. A board meeting was fixed on 30th September, 2002. It was being attended by the Directors. Respondent No.1 and her husband came and forced themselves into the board meeting which was to be held. This was objected by some of the Directors including the Petitioner. Respondent No.1 and her husband were requested to go out of the board room. Respondent No.1 had carried a voice recording machine. She argued with the Petitioner. She lodged the false and dishonest complaint on the same day against the Petitioner. The Petitioner was called by the police in the police station in the evening of that day.

5. The initial complaint was U/s.385, 504 and 509 of the IPC. There was, therefore, a complaint of extortion which was punishable with two years imprisonment or fine or both which was a bailable and compoundable offence. The complaint was also for insulting the modesty of a women for which punishment was of simple imprisonment for one year and fine and which was also bailable and compoundable. The complaint was also for insulting the complainant to provoke breach of peace which was non cognizable, bailable and compoundable.

6. Despite the three offences levelled against the Petitioner the police officers are stated to have added further charges. Initially the charge of cheating came to be added punishable U/s.420 of the IPC. That is punishable with 7 years imprisonment or fine or both and is non bailable, though compoundable. Thereafter charges of criminal breach of trust, forgery, forgery for cheating, using forged documents as genuine etc. also came to be added punishable U/s.406, 467, 468 & 471 of the IPC. Under these charges the Petitioner would be liable for punishment of 7 years and for 10 years extending to life imprisonment along with fine. All these charges are non bailable and not compoundable.

7. The Petitioner was produced for remand. Upon seeing the charges he was remanded to PC. The Petitioner remained in police custody for 7 days until he was released on bail. The incident took place and the complaint came to be filed on 30th September, 2002. On 5th October, 2002 Cr. Case No.137 of 2002 came to be registered for charge U/s.385, 504, 509 r/w.34 of the IPC against the Petitioner father and brother. On 14th October, 2002 charge under Sections 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 were added. In view of the later charges the Petitioner taken in the custody. The Petitioner was arrested on 27th November, 2002. He was produced for remand on 28th November, 2002. He was remanded till 2nd December, 2002. He was granted bail on 3rd December, 2002.

8. The initial investigation was started by one Police Officer Rathod. Thereafter Respondent No.3 and 4 g