:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO. 3713 OF 2008 M/s.Atul Builders and Associates ..Applicants Vs. Mr.Deepak Laxman Pathare and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr. A.P.Mundargi counsel for Applicants Mrs.Vaishali R.Bhilare Adv. for Respondent no.1 Ms. A.A.Mane, APP for State. ... CORAM: SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J. Date : November 18, 2008. Date : November 18, 2008. Date : November 18, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned advocate for the respondent no.1 and the learned APP for the State. 2. The respondent no.1 has filed a complaint against the present applicants under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r.w. 34 of IPC. The said :2: complaint is numbered as C.C. No. 232/Misc./2008 is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th Court, Borivali, Mumbai. In the said case the learned Magistrate issued directions to investigate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing directions under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. the applicants are seeking quashing of the said order. 4. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of B.S. Khatri (Co.) & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in 2004 (1) Bom. C.R. 2004 (1) Bom. C.R. 2004 (1) Bom. C.R. 424 424 424, 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 Section 401 of the Code. Thus, it is observed that alternate remedy is available to the applicants. 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 averments in the complaint are reliable or genuine and :3: whether cognizance is liable to be taken or not. It is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Magistrate trying the offence and not for the High Court to decide at such premature stage. Thus, in my view, looking to the fact that there is an alternate efficacious remedy available to the applicants, the present application is not maintainable. 5. Besides this, in my view, this 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 that order may disclose no offence therefore, the Magistrate may drop the complaint. In this view of the matter to quash the order at this stage would be unwarranted and premature. 6. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere at this stage. 7. In case the investigating agency is of the opinion that the custody of the applicants is :4: required, in such case the investigating agency shall give 72 hours notice in writing to the applicants, prior to their arrest. In case such notice is received by applicants, the applicants to prefer necessary application for anticipatory bail before the concerned Sessions Court. 8. With the above directions, application is disposed of. [Smt.V.K. Tahilramani,J.] [Smt.V.K. Tahilramani,J.] [Smt.V.K. Tahilramani,J.]