:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1954 OF 2008 Satappa Ganpati Chougule and ors. ..Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr. ..Respondents Mr. H.S. Venegavkar for petitioners. Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa, APP for State. Mr. Vinod Wagh for respondent no.2. CORAM: SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J. Date : November 17, 2008. Date : November 17, 2008. Date : November 17, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners - original accused, learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 - original complainant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The respondent no.2 has filed a complaint against the present petitioners under Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC. The said complaint is numbered as Misc. Application No. 677 of 2008. It is pending before the JMFC, Kolhapur and it is sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by order dated 1/9/2008. :2: 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing directions under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the petitioners 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 petitioners. 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 :3: available to the petitioners, the present petition is not maintainable. 5. 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 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. The learned Advocate for the petitioners states that he is also praying for quashing of case. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere at this stage. As far as this prayer is concerned, liberty is granted to the petitioners to prefer separate proceedings at a later stage, if necessary. 7. In case the investigating agency is of the opinion that the custody of the petitioners is required, in such case the investigating agency shall :4: 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. Needless to say that if such an application is preferred, the concerned Sessions Judge shall dispose of the said application on merits. 8. With the above directions, writ petition is disposed of. (Smt.V.K. Tahilramani,J.) (Smt.V.K. Tahilramani,J.) (Smt.V.K. Tahilramani,J.)