[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL W.P.NO.1924 OF 2008 Jayesh Dhanwantrai Shah ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.Raja Thakare Adv. i/b Mr.A.M.Chimalkar and Shri.S.C.Kumbhar advocate for petitioner Mr. S.R.Shinde APP for State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : DECEMBER 2, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 2, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 2, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner-orignal accused and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Respondent No.3 filed complaint before Judicial Magistrate F.C. against the petitioner and others under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 r.w. 34 of IPC. The said complaint is numbered as CC No.1051 of 2008. In the said complaint, by order dated 10.6.2008, the learned Magistrate directed Mira Road Police to investigate the matter and submit report under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. [-2-] Being aggrieved by the said order, this petition has been preferred. 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, such an order ought not to have been passed. 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 petitioner. Thus, the petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing directions under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is 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. 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 petitioner. It is further held by the Division Bench in para 22 of [-3-] 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. 5. Besides this, in my view, as 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. I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. 6. In case the investigating agency is of the opinion that the custody of the petitioner is required, in such case the investigating agency shall give 72 hours notice in writing to the petitioner, prior to his arrest. In case such [-4-] notice is received by the petitioner, the petitioner to prefer necessary application before the concerned Sessions Court. Needless to say that if such an application is filed the concerned Sessions Judge shall dispose of the said application on merits. 7. With the above directions, writ petition is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]