1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Cri. Appln. No.2827 of 2009 Sayyad Maqsood Ali V/s. State of Maharashtra + 4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A.R. Sheikh & S.Z. Qazi, counsel for applicant. Mrs. Khade, A.P.P. for State. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED:- 7 th of August, 2009. 1. The petitioner filed a proceeding which is marked as an Application No.762 of 2008. According to the applicant said proceeding is a complaint against four persons set out in the proceedings. According to the petitioner the said proceeding is a complaint alleging that those four persons have committed an offence punishable under section 403, 405, 406 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After filing this application which is at page 12 of this petition, petitioner has filed another application against those four persons in Criminal Application No.762 of 2008 at Exh.5 under section 93 of the Criminal 2 Procedure Code. By that application, the petitioner wanted that house and the properties of those four persons should be raided. This application was considered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 11th Court, and notice was issued to those four persons to appear and file their reply. That application at Exh.5 came to be granted by order dated 9th February 2009. Against that order, those four persons filed revision petition in the District Court being Criminal Revision No.40 of 2009. The said revision was attended to by learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati and by order dated 22/5/2009. The said revision was allowed and the order of search was rejected. Against the said order dated 22/5/2009 the petitioner has filed this petition. 2. I have heard Advocate for the petitioner as well as Mrs. Khade for the State. The Court was informed that the application at Exh.5 came to be filed before putting the complainant for the purposes of verification and that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, issued notice to those persons and decided the matter. After having considered the scheme of section 93 of the Criminal Procedure Code, I wish to observe that the application 3 at Exh.5 came to be filed at premature stage in as much as the said application was filed before the petitioner was ordered by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, to render verification. In my view, the application at Exh.5 was premature and the same has been dismissed by the order passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati by an order dated 22/5/2009. The reasons mentioned in this order may not now necessarily gone into once it is observed that the application was filed at a premature stage. Accordingly, the petition is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Hence the order. a. The petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. b. Needless to mention that if the petitioner wants to file an application, similar to the application at Exh.5, the petitioner is free to do so, at a proper stage and that proper stage would be after the petitioner renders his verification. JUDGE nvt.