..(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.2484 OF 2008 Madhukar Vishnu Kamble and 14 others ..Petitioners Versus Versus Versus Prasad Hindural Patil and Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr.P.D.Dalvi, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.S.R.Shinde APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : DECEMBER 18, 2008. DATED : DECEMBER 18, 2008. DATED : DECEMBER 18, 2008. P.C.: 1. Leave to amend is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned APP for the State. 3. Private complaint came to be filed against the petitioners before the learned C.J.M. Kolhapur. The said case is numbered as as Misc. Application No. 580 of 2008. In the said case, by order dated 1.8.2008, the learned Magistrate issued directions under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate ..(2).. directing investigation under Section 156(3), this Petition has been preferred. 3. 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 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, look to the fact that there is an alternate efficacious remedy available to the petitioners, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 4. Besides this, in my view, the petition is ..(3).. premature, there is no need to interfere at this stage as all that has ben 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 in the impugned order at this stage. 5. In case the investigating agency is of the opinion that the custody of the petitioners is required, in such case the investigating agency shall 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. 6. With the above directions, writ petition is disposed of. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)