..(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.2408 OF 2008 Mr.Vinay Grover and others. ..Petitioners. Versus Versus Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Girish Kulkarni, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 10th December, 2008. DATED : 10th December, 2008. DATED : 10th December, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2. The respondent - orig.complainant filed a case being Criminal Case No.97/M/2008 against the petitioners who are officials of the Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd.. The said complaint is under Sections 379, 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 201 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 and/or 120B of Indian Penal Code. In the said case, the learned Magistrate by an order dated 28th July, 2008 issued directions to investigate the case under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.. Being aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate directing ..(2).. 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 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 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, looking 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 premature, there is no need to interfere at this ..(3).. 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. 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.)