..(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.1797 OF 2008 Mrs.Bhavna Hemant Shah. ..Petitioner. Versus Versus Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Himanshu B. Takke, Adv. for the petitioner. 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. DATED : 11th November, 2008. DATED : 11th November, 2008. DATED : 11th November, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2. A complaint came to be filed against the petitioner before the learned A.C.M.M., 24th Court at Borivali, Mumbai. The said case is numbered as C.C. No.Misc/236/2008. In the said case, the learned Magistrate directed investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.. The said case is numbered as FIR No.MECR 4 of 2008 of Charcop police station, Mumbai. Being aggrieved by the order directing investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the petitioner has approached this ..(2).. Court. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has contended that on perusal of the entire complaint, it does not make out any offence against the petitioner and therefore, the complaint is liable to be quashed. It is submitted that the complaint has been filed only with a view to harass the petitioner. Thus, it is submitted that the learned Magistrate ought not to have passed an order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 4. It is seen that in the present case only an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) has been passed by the learned Magistrate. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of B.S.Khatri and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and B.S.Khatri and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and B.S.Khatri and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 2004(1) Bom.C.R.424 Anr., 2004(1) Bom.C.R.424 Anr., 2004(1) Bom.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 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 ..(3).. whether the 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. 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 the order under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. may disclose no offence in such case the Magistrate may drop the complaint. 6. In this view of the matter, quashing of the order under Section 156 Cr.P.C. at this stage would be unwarranted and premature. Moreover, the Apex Court in the case of M/S.Jayant Vitamins Ltd. M/S.Jayant Vitamins Ltd. M/S.Jayant Vitamins Ltd. Vs. Chaitanyakumar Vs. Chaitanyakumar Vs. Chaitanyakumar, reported in AIR 1992 SC 1930 AIR 1992 SC 1930 AIR 1992 SC 1930 held that quashing of investigation by the High Court would not be permissible at such premature stage. ..(4).. 7. Thus, in view of the above and the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of B.S.Khatri B.S.Khatri B.S.Khatri (supra), I am not inclined to quash the case or to quash the order directing investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Hence, Criminal Writ Petition is rejected. 8. However, it is made clear that in case the investigating agency is of the opinion that custody of the petitioner is necessary, in such case the investigating agency shall give 72 hours notice to the petitioner prior to her arrest. If such notice is served, the petitioner to prefer necessary application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. 9. Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)