..(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.2980 OF 2006 Avtar Singh Kochhar ...Applicant. Versus Versus Versus U.T.V. Software Communication Ltd., and Anr. ...Respondents. .... Mr.A. Misar, Adv. i/b Ajay Misar & Co. for Applicant. Smt.V.R.Bhosale, APP, for State. Mr.Prakash Naik, Adv. for Respondent No.1. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 6th March, 2007. DATED : 6th March, 2007. DATED : 6th March, 2007. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant-orig.accused, the learned Advocate for respondent No.1 and the learned APP for the State. 2. In this case, respondent No.1-orig.complainant had filed a complaint against the applicant under sections 409, 467, 471 of IPC. The said case is pending before the learned M.M., 29th Court, Dadar, Mumbai. In the said case the learned Magistrate passed an order ..(2).. under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.. Pursuant to the said order, M.E.C.R.No.1 of 2006 has been registered. The applicant is seeking quashing of said M.E.C.R.No.1 of 2006. 3. The learned APP for the State states that the investigation in the said case is going on and that the applicant is not available for investigation. She has stated that the investigating agency should be given a fair opportunity to investigate. 4. In this view of the matter, as the matter is at the investigation stage, in my opinion, the investigating agency ought to be given a reasonable opportunity to investigate. 5. In the present case, all that has been done by the learned Magistrate is to pass order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.. In respect of matters before the Magistrate wherein orders under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. have been passed, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of B.S.Khatri and B.S.Khatri and B.S.Khatri and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 2004(1) Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 2004(1) Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 2004(1) Bom.C.R.424 Bom.C.R.424 Bom.C.R.424, has observed in Para-22 that it is not open for the Court to decide as to whether the ..(3).. 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. 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. 7. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere at this stage. In case the police files a report involving the applicant, the applicant is at liberty to take appropriate steps. Thus, I do not see any merit in the present Application. Hence, Criminal Application is rejected. 8. In case the investigating agency is of the opinion that custody of the applicant is required, in such case the investigating agency shall give ..(4).. 72 hours notice to the applicant prior to his arrest. In case such notice is received by the applicant, the applicant to prefer necessary application before the concerned Sessions Court. Needless to say that if such an application is preferred the concerned Sessions Court shall dispose of the said application on merits. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)