[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.3587 OF 2008 Rudolph Anthony Lima and 11 Ors. ..Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondents ... Mr.Niteen Pradhan Adv. with Mr.Sayaji Nangre Adv. for applicants Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa A.P.P. for the 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 counsel for the applicants-original accused and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking quashing of CR No.I-152 of 2006 and CR No.I-47 of 2008 registered at Panchvati Police Station, Nasik City. Both the cases are being investigated by Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. Nasik. 3. As far as CR No.I-47 of 2008 is concerned, this Court by order dated 8.9.2008 in Criminal Application No. 614 of 2008 stayed the proceedings in respect of the applicants, hence, in my opinion, [-2-] at present, it is not necessary to grant any further relief in respect of CR No.I-47 of 2008. 4. As far as CR NO.I-152 of 2006 is concerned, a private complaint i.e. CC No.318 of 2006 came to be lodged against the applicants before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nasik. In the said case, the learned Magistrate sent the case for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the order passed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., CR No.I-152 of 2006 came to be registered by Panchvati Police Station, Nasik. At present, the matter is being investigated by the Crime Branch. 5. The learned Advocate for the applicants has contended that on perusal of the entire complaint it does not make out any offence against the applicants and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be quashed. 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 applicants. The applicants are also aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing directions under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the applicants are also seeking quashing of the said [-3-] order. 6. 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 applicants. 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. 7. 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 that order may disclose no offence [-4-] 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. 8. In case the investigating agency is of the opinion that the custody of the applicants is required, in such case the investigating agency shall give 72 hours notice in writing to the applicants, prior to their arrest. In case such notice is received by the applicants, the applicants to prefer necessary application before the concerned Sessions Court. 9. With the above directions, application is disposed of. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)