[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4556 OF 2008 Vijay K. Bhutani and Anr. ..Applicants. Versus State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr.H.E.Palwe, Adv. for the applicants. Ms.A.A.Mane, APP, for the State. .... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : DECEMBER 18, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 18, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 18, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants-original accused and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking quashing of CR No.I-152 of 2006 and CR No.I-47 of 2008 registered at Panchvati Police Station, Nasik City. Both the cases are being investigated by Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. Nasik. 3. As far as CR No.I-47 of 2008 is concerned, it is seen that this Court by order dated 8.9.2008 in Criminal Application No. 614 of 2008 stayed the proceedings in respect of some of the accused as a [-2-] statement was made by the prosecution that no investigation was being carried out in relation to C.R. No.47 of 2008. Hence, as far as this case is concerned, at this stage I am not inclined to grant any further relief as the applicant has already preferred an application for anticipatory bail before the concerned Sessions Court. In case the prosecution decides to investigate C.R. No.47 of 2008, it would be open to the petitioner to prefer appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum in respect of the said C.R. 4. As far as CR NO.I-152 of 2006 is concerned, a private complaint i.e. CC No.318 of 2006 came to be lodged against the applicants and others before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nasik. In the said case, the learned Magistrate sent the case for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the order passed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., CR No.I-152 of 2006 came to be registered by Panchvati Police Station, Nasik. At present, the matter is being investigated by the Crime Branch. 5. The learned Advocate for the applicants has contended that on perusal of the entire complaint [-3-] it does not make out any offence against the applicants and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be quashed. He also submitted that the dispute is purely of a civil nature and the complaint has been filed only with a view to harass the applicants. The applicants are also aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing directions under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the applicants are also seeking quashing of the said order. 6. 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. 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 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 whether cognizance is liable to be taken or not. It is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Magistrate trying the [-4-] offence and not for the High Court to decide at such premature stage. 7. 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. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere at this stage. 8. In case the investigating agency is of the opinion that the custody of the applicants is required in C.R. No.I-152 of 2006, 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. 9. With the above directions, application is [-5-] disposed of. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)