Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, A.P.P. for respondent No. 1 – State and learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

3. In view of the limited challenge raised in the petition confined to issuance of process without conducting inquiry as contemplated under section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code, it is not necessary to discuss the facts in detail.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No. 2 and A.P.P. for State and perused the impugned order.

5. Mr. R.S. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioners invited attention to the impugned order and submitted that in view of the amendment made to section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure which is brought into effect from 23/06/2006 before passing order of issuance of process, it is mandatory on the part of learned Magistrate to conduct inquiry by himself or to direct to make investigation by the police officer and then to form opinion that sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the accused. It is contended that the impugned order is passed without conducting the mandatory inquiry as contemplated under section 202 of Criminal Pro