:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3660 OF 2008 Shri Mohan Mukhi and ors. ..Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr. ..Respondents Mr. Harshad Bhadbhade for applicants. Mr. S.R. Shinde, APP for State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.V.K. SMT.V.K. SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J. TAHILRAMANI,J. TAHILRAMANI,J. Date Date Date : : : November 12, 2008. November 12, 2008. November 12, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2. The respondent no.2 has filed a complaint against the present applicants under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. The said complaint is numbered as Criminal Case No. 34 of 2008 and it is pending before the JMFC, Court No.2, Nashik Road and it is sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by order dated 31/1/2008. 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the :2: 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 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 applicants, the present application is not maintainable. :3: 5. 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 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 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 the applicants, the applicants to prefer necessary application for anticipatory bail before the concerned Sessions Court. Needless to say that if such an application is preferred the concerned Sessions Judge shall dispose of the said application on merits. :4: 8. The learned Advocate for the applicants states that he is also praying for quashing of case. As far as this prayer is concerned, liberty is granted to the applicants to prefer separate proceedings. 9. With the above directions, application is disposed of. (Smt.V.K. (Smt.V.K. (Smt.V.K. Tahilramani,J.) Tahilramani,J.) Tahilramani,J.)