1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the learned trial Magistrate without following the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.138 of 2011 had issued process against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed complaint bearing No. 16047 of 2010 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Statement of the complainants/ respondents on oath was recorded for verification of the correctness of the complaint and a process was issued against the applicants to answer the charge for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 16th December, 2010. The said order was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 138 of 2011. This Court (Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J) while finally deciding the said writ petition took a view that the inquiry as contemplated under Section 202 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the cases where the accused are residing at a place beyond the area in which Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction is mandatory in nature and the Magistrate has no discretion in so far as the provisions of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are concerned. This Court therefore, quashed and set aside order dated 16th December, 2010 and directed the learned trial Magistrate to hold inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was further directed that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall appear before the learned trial Magistrate on 5th December, 2011.

4. When the matter was heard afresh by the learned Magistrate and inquiry was held in view of the judgment and order of this Court, the learned Magistrate had recorded statement of the complainant in the said inquiry. After recording of the said statement a fresh process was issued on 16th January, 2012 against all the petitioners to answer the charge for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

5. It is this order which is under challenge in the present petition. Learned counsel Mr.Joshi appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned trial Magistrate instead of holding an inquiry as contemplated under Section 202 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure had simply recorded statement of the complainant and had proceeded to issue fresh process. It is contended by Mr. Joshi that the learned trial Court failed to comply the order passed by this Hon'ble Court.

6. Learned counsel Mr. Bhattad appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 has submitted that in the cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act there is hardly any scope for detail inquiry and that the Magistrate in compliance with the order of this Court had recorded statement of the complainant and had proceeded to pass fresh order. It is submitted by Mr. Bhattad that the learned trial Court could not have done any further inquiry as the case of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is mainly based on the documents.

7. No doubt, the learned trial Magistrate has a very little scope for detail inquiry in the complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act. However, the learned trial Magistrate could not have ignored the order of this Court. The learned Magistrate should have gone through the allegations made in the complaint and should have ascertained as to whether there are certain issues which required detail inquiry before deciding as to whether the process could be issued or not.

8. In the present case, the cheque which has allegedly been dishonoured was worth Rs.5,88,000/-. The dishonour of cheque has not been denied by the petitioners. The contention of the petitioners is that the cheque was to be honoured subject to certain conditions. The terms and conditions for honouring the ch