( 1 ) THIS Miscellaneous Criminal Application under sec. 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) is filed by the petitioners (original accused) challenging the Order dated 9-11-1984 in M. Enquiry Case No. 31 of 1984 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Surendranagar directing Police Sub-Inspector Wadhwan to investigate the complaint under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 156 of the Code and submit the report.

( 2 ) IT transpires that the learned Magistrate on receiving the complaint had not examined the complaint before him under sec. 200 or 202 of the Code and had not taken the cognizance of the offence on the complaint and directed the Police to investigate under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 156 of the Code.

( 3 ) OPPONENT No. 1 filed the complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Surendranagar against the petitioners contending that petitioner No. 1 opponent No. 1 Prabhashanker Manilal Pandya and Sushilakumari Natvarsinh Parmar were the partners of the business carried on in the name and style of Uchem Laboratory for manufacturing medicines injections etc. since 5-11-1985 and petitioner No. 1 Kanaksinh Hathisinh Jadeja was managing partner and was looking after the business of the firm. Petitioners Nos. 2 3 and 4 are the relatives of petitioner No. 1. Opponent No. 1 being qualified chemist was supervising the manufacturing process and was paid salary of Rs. 1 0 per month. The firm was served notice by the Dena Bank Surendranagar and therefore opponent No. 1 came to know about the mismanagement of the affairs of the firm and therefore the partners requested petitioner No. 1 to give accounts of the firm but petitioner No. 1 hesitated and removed the valuable articles like Refrigerator distillation plant with heater steel tank fans motor-cycle fiat car etc. from the premises of the firm and locked the premises and then represented to the Dena Bank authorities that all the pledged and hypothecated articles were inside the premises of the firm and relying on his representation the Bank also applied its lock on the premises of the firm. It is also alleged that petitioners Nos. 2 3 and 4 abetted petitioner No. 1 in removing the said articles and committing illegal acts by petitioner No. 1. According to opponent No. 1 the petitioners committed offences punishable under secs. 403 406 421 341 477 448 read with sec. 34 Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate on receiving the complaint passed the order under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 156 of the Code directing Police Sub-Inspector Wadhwan to investigate and submit his report.

( 4 ) MR. D. D. Vyas learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the learned Magistrate before directing investigation under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 156 of the Code should have recorded the reasons. As the learned Magistrate has not recorded the reasons for directing investigation by the Police the order is vitiated. Mr. Vyas in support of his submission has tried to get support from the judgment of this Court in Ramanlal Chhaganlal Bhavsar v. P. M. Desai 11 (1970) GLR 967 in which it is in terms observed that it is imperative for the Magistrate to give some reasons which indicate application of his mind to the facts of the case in respect of which he considers inquiry necessary before issuing process against him and merely directing a Police Officer to inquire and report under sec. 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898 is not enough and cannot be said to have complied with sec 202 (1) of the Code. In that case the learned single Judge referred the provisions of sec. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in which specific provisions were that the Magistrate directing the inquiry or investigation by a Police Officer should record his reasons in writing For postponing the issue of process. In sec. 202 of the Code 1973 the obligations to record the reasons in writing for postponing the issue of process are specifically not included. Under sec. 202 of the repelle