..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3490 OF 2008 Shri Shahaji Rajaram Patil and Anr. ..Applicants. Versus Versus Versus Shri Vijay Nivrutti Patil and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Amit B. Borkar, Adv. for the applicants. Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 11th November, 2008. DATED : 11th November, 2008. DATED : 11th November, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2. Respondent No.1 has filed a complaint against the applicants under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code before the learned J.M.F.C. at Islampur. The said case is numbered as Regular Criminal Case No.263 of 2007. In the said case, by order dated 17th June, 2008 the learned J.M.F.C. directed investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have approached ..(2).. this Court. 3. The learned Advocate for the applicants has contended that on perusal of the entire complaint, it does not make out any offence against the applicants and therefore, the complaint is liable to be quashed. It is submitted that the complaint has been filed only with a view to harass the applicants. Thus, it is submitted that the learned Magistrate ought not to have passed an order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicants have placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.L.E.Society and K.L.E.Society and K.L.E.Society and others vs. Siddalingesh, others vs. Siddalingesh, others vs. Siddalingesh, reported in (2008) 4 (2008) 4 (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 541 Supreme Court Cases 541 Supreme Court Cases 541. In the said case, it is observed that if the complaint does not disclose any offence, then the complaint can be quashed. It is further observed that if Criminal proceedings are lodged with malafide motive then a case for quashing is made. In the said case the Court was not dealing with matter wherein order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. had been issued by the Magistrate and hence obviously there is no discussion on the point whether a Court should ..(3).. interfere with order under Section 156(3) at a preliminary stage. 5. It is seen that in the present case only an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) has been passed by the learned Magistrate. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of B.S.Khatri and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and B.S.Khatri and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and B.S.Khatri and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 2004(1) Bom.C.R.424 Anr., 2004(1) Bom.C.R.424 Anr., 2004(1) Bom.C.R.424, has observed in para 13 of the said decision that the order under Section 156(3) of the Code can be revised by a Sessions Judge or by this Court under section 397 read with 401 of the Code. Thus, it is observed that alternate remedy is available to the petitioner. It is further held by the Division Bench in Para-22 of the said decision that it is not therefore open for the Court to decide as to whether the averments in the complaint are reliable or genuine, and whether cognizance is liable to be taken or not. It is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Magistrate trying the offence and not the High Court to decide at such premature stage. 6. On perusal of the decision in the case of K.L.E. Society K.L.E. Society K.L.E. Society (supra), it is noticed that it is ..(4).. not on the point of quashing of an order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., whereas there is a direct decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of B.S.Khatri B.S.Khatri B.S.Khatri (supra) which is directly on that point. 7. Besides this, in my view, the application is premature. There is no need to interfere at this stage as all that has been done by the learned Magistrate is to pass an order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.. The report that the police may file as a consequence of the order under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. may disclose no offence in such case the Magistrate may drop the complaint. 8. In this view of the matter, quashing of the order under Section 156 Cr.P.C. at this stage would be unwarranted and premature. The Apex Court in the case of M/S.Jayant Vitamins Ltd. Vs. M/S.Jayant Vitamins Ltd. Vs. M/S.Jayant Vitamins Ltd. Vs. Chaitanyakumar Chaitanyakumar Chaitanyakumar, reported in AIR 1992 SC 1930 AIR 1992 SC 1930 AIR 1992 SC 1930 held that quashing of investigation by the High Court would not be permissible at such premature stage. 9. Thus, in view of the above and the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of ..(5).. B.S.Khatri B.S.Khatri B.S.Khatri (supra), I am not inclined to quash the case or to quash the order directing investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Hence, Criminal Application is rejected. 10. However, it is made clear that in case the investigating agency is of the opinion that custody of the applicants is necessary, in such case the investigating agency shall give 72 hours notice to the applicants prior to their arrest. If such notice is served, the applicant to prefer necessary application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)