V.M. Deshpande, J.

1. The present petition is directed against the judgment and order, passed by the learned District Judge-3, Dhule, dated 3.11.2012 in Criminal Revision Application No. 171 of 2009, by which the learned Revisional Court allowed the revision filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 18, thereby set aside the order, passed by the learned Magistrate, dated 22.9.2009 in Regular Criminal Case No. 794 of 2006 about issuance of process against them for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. I have heard Shri R.J. Godbole, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri D.R. Korde, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1/State and Shri N.B. Suryawanshi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 18.

2. The present petitioner is the original complainant. He filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule against respondent Nos. 2 to 18 making various allegations in the same. The said complaint is registered as Regular Criminal Case No. 794 of 2006. It was presented in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 2, Dhule on 4.11.2006. On very same day, learned Magistrate was pleased to call the report of police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. Pursuant to the said direction, dated 4.11.2006, on 1.4.2007 the police station officer, Deopur police station, Dhule submitted a report with the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. In inquiry, it appears that the investigating officer has recorded statements of various persons. By the said report, the investigating officer reported that in the inquiry he found that the allegations made by the petitioner/complainant are not proved and in order to substantiate the allegations, the complainant has not pointed out any documentary evidence and also he could not bring any witness.

4. On 24.8.2009, the learned Magistrate passed an order to the effect that the report is opposed by the complainant on the ground that it is false, and therefore, the complainant was given liberty to produce his evidence, if any, till next date. On 22.9.2009, the learned Magistrate passed an order to the effect that considering the contentions of the complainant, verification and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant, the complainant has made out a prima facie case against the accused, and hence, process was issued against respondent Nos. 2 to 18 for the offences as stated in paragraph 1 of this judgment.

5. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Criminal Revision Application No. 171 of 2009 was placed before the Revisional Court. The learned Revisional Court allowed the Revision.

6. Perusal of the order, passed by the Revisional Court would reveal that mainly the Revisional Court was impressed by the report of the investigating officer and the statements of the witnesses, which he has recorded during his investigation, and therefore, the Revisional Court set aside the said order.

7. Merely because a particular report is filed in the court of the learned Magistrate in pursuance to the inquiry conducted by the police officer under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is not obliged to accept the said report, however, if the Magistrate wish to differ with the report filed by the investigating officer, purported to be under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, then in that event, it is incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to record the reasons for the same.

8. In the present case, it is clear that the learned Magistrate has not recorded any reasons while rejecting the report filed by the investigating officer under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

9. Since the learned Revisional Court has mainly allowed the Revision in view of the report submitted by the investigating officer and the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of said investigation, necessarily the Revisional Court ought to have reman