..(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 WRIT PETITION NO.2257 OF 2008 Gangadhar Shivram Shjetty and others. ..Petitioners. Versus Versus Versus Dinesh Punia, and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.S.A.Sawant, Adv. a/w. Mr.Samir Suryawanshi, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 11th December, 2008. DATED : 11th December, 2008. DATED : 11th December, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned APP for the State. 2. The respondent - orig.complainant filed a case being Criminal Case No.101/M/2008 against the petitioners. It is mainly under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. The said case is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court (I/C.) Borivali, Mumbai. In the said case, the learned Magistrate issued directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the said order, this Petition has been preferred. ..(2).. 3. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of B.S. Khatri (Co.) & Ors. Vs. State of B.S. Khatri (Co.) & Ors. Vs. State of B.S. Khatri (Co.) & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Maharashtra and Anr. Maharashtra and Anr. reported in 2004 (1) Bom. 2004 (1) Bom. 2004 (1) Bom. C.R. 424 C.R. 424 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 Section 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 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 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 petitioners, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 4. Besides this, in my view, the petition 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 ..(3).. 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. I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order at this stage. 5. In case the investigating agency is of the opinion that the custody of the petitioners is required, in such case the investigating agency shall give 72 hours notice in writing to the petitioners, prior to their arrest. In case such notice is received by the petitioners, the petitioners to prefer necessary application before the concerned Sessions Court. 6. With the above directions, writ petition is disposed of. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)