Abhay M. Thipsay, J. - (1.)Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.
(2.)The petitioner filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon alleging commission of various cognizable offences by the respondent nos.2 and 3 herein and praying that, the police be ordered to investigate into the matter as contemplated under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate, on 25.9.2012, passed an order on the said application to the effect that, he needed some clarification from the mouth of the complaint on the point of the alleged offences. He, therefore, directed the complainant 'to adduce his evidence at the precognizance stage'. Pursuant to this order, the applicant was examined by the Magistrate on oath.
Thereafter, the Magistrate passed an order purportedly under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the police to investigate into the matter. The respondent nos.2 and 3 challenged the said order by filing a Revision Application in the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the revision application allowed the same and set aside the order passed by the Magistrate ordering investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.)The only ground on which the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order to investigate the matter as passed by the Magistrate was that after having examined the complainant on oath, the Magistrate could not have switched back to the stage as contemplated under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and could not have ordered an investigation into the matter under the said provision.