Both these applications can be conveniently decided by this common order. The applicant as also the respondent no.2, in both these applications, are the same. The questions needing determination are also the same and even the facts are identical. Whenever it would be necessary to refer to the facts, for the sake of convenience, reference shall be made to the facts of the Criminal Application No.2883/2013 only.

Since notice had already been issued to the respondents, the applications are heard finally.

2. The applicant is one of the accused- i.e. Accused No.1-in R.C.C. No. 932/2010 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Aurangabad. The case arises on a complaint filed by the respondent no.2 herein. After examining the respondent No.2 herein (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant", for the sake of clarity and convenience), the learned Magistrate postponed the issue of process and directed investigation to be carried out by the police under the provisions of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code'). After receipt of the report of investigation, the learned Magistrate passed an order issuing process against the applicant and other accused in respect of offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), Section 467 of IPC, 468 of IPC, 471 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. Aggrieved by the order issuing process, the applicant approached the Court of Sessions by filing an application for revision, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, who heard the same, dismissed it. It is under these circumstances that the applicant has approached this Court by filing above applications invoking inherent powers of this Court.

3. Only one contention has been advanced on behalf of the applicant. It is that though issue of process has been postponed and investigation by the Police under Section 202 of the Code had been ordered, the process has been issued without taking into consideration the report of investigation, which had been received.

4. I have gone through the order issuing process. It does not mention anything about the police report. On the contrary one of the sentences in the order reads as "the offences in question have been specifically made out in the 'complaint'" (emphasis supplied). This aspect was noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the Revision proceedings, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that though there was no reference in the order to the Police report, it could not be said that the impugned order was not proper. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that "it is settled law that for order of issuance of process, no detailed order is required."

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the complainant at length. He has placed reliance on various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

6. Though arguments have been advanced at length, the substance thereof is only that the order issuing process need not be a speaking order or detailed order, or a reasoned order. There can be no dispute with respect to this proposition. The question that arises in the instant case is entirely different; and it is this:- whether a Magistrate, who has postponed the issue of process and directed an investigation into the Police under the provisions of Section 202 of the Code, can issue process without taking the report submitted by the Police upon investigation into consideration.

7. In my opinion, the Magistrate can not do so. The fact that he postponed the issue of process indicates that at that stage, he had not formed any opinion, as to whether or not, there were sufficient grounds for proceeding. It is because he thinks that he needs aid in the nature of further investigation, that a Magistrate would direct investigation into the matter under Section 202 of the Code. Under these circumstances undoubtedly, when such a report would be submitted to him, the Magistrate woul