DILIP MAHADEO CHIVATE Vs. SURESH JYOTIRAM MHAMANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners and the learned A. P. P. for the State.

(2.) The petitioners are seeing quashing of the complainant bearing Nos. 100 of 2005 and 71 of 2005 filed by respondent no.1 before the learned J. M. F. C. , Miraj. THE said complaints i. e. complaint No. 100 of 2005 is under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 r. w. 34 of IPC and complaint No. 71 of 2005 is under Sections 427, 465, 466, 468, 471, 472, 474 r. w. 34 of IPC.

(3.) The Division Bench of this Court in the case of B. S. Khatri (Co.) & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2004 1 BCR 424, has observed in para 13 of the said decision that the order under Section156 (3) of the Code can be revised by a Sessions Judge or by this Court under Section397 r. w. 401 of the Code. Thus, it is observed that alternate remedy is available to the petitioners. 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 further observed that it is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Magistrate trying the offence and not for the High Court to decide at such premature stage.