1 cr-wp-1412-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.W.P. NO. 1412 OF 2010 Mr. Jawahar Singh and Anr. ..Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr. Mahesh Vaswani Adv. along with Mr. Omprakash Jha, Ms. Poonam Shrivastav and Satyaprakash Yadav for Petitioners Smt. U.V.Kejariwal APP for State Mr. Niteen Pradhan Adv. i/by Mr. Kuldeep S.patil Adv. for Respondent No.2 Mr. Anand Mishra Adv. i/b Mr. A.M.Saraogi Adv. for respondent no.3 .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 04, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner nos.1 and 2 are present before this Court. Mr. Jaideep H.Surve, Police Inspector of Malvani is also present. 2 The petitioners-original accused nos.3 and 2 have prayed for quashing of order dated 23.2.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, Mumbai in complaint lodged 2 cr-wp-1412-10 against them by respondent no.2. At the relevant time, the petitioner no. 1 was the Chief Vigilance Officer of MHADA and the petitioner no.2 was Vigilance Officer of MHADA. By the said order, the learned Magistrate directed Malvani Police Station to investigate into the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and submit a suitable report. 3 The learned advocate for the petitioners contended that on perusal of the entire complaint, it does not make out any offence against the petitioners and therefore, the order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. ought to be quashed. Thus, it is submitted that the learned Magistrate ought not to have passed the order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and hence, the order be quashed. 4 The Division Bench of this Court in the case of B.S.Khatri Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2004(1) Mh.L.J. Page 747 has observed in paragraph 13 of the said decision that the order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. can be revised by Sessions Judge or this Court. It is also an admitted fact that against the very same order co- accused Ismile (original accused no.3) has preferred C.R.A. No.19 of 2010 before the Sessions Court. The said CRA is pending before the Sessions Court. In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate that the petitioners are granted liberty to prefer a revision before the Sessions Court challenging the order of the learned Magistrate issuing 3 cr-wp-1412-10 directions under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Hence, liberty is granted to the petitioners to prefer a fresh revision before the Sessions Court challenging the said order. 5 It is made clear that the investigation will continue, however, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioners till the final report is submitted. In case the Investigating Agency is of the opinion that the custody of the petitioners is necessary, in such case, the Investigating Agency shall give 72 hours notice to the petitioners prior to their arrest. 6 Writ petition disposed of in above terms. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]