PAVAMKUMAR BHURMALJI OSTWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the order rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code in a criminal complaint case filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Nandurbar.

(2.) It is not necessary to consider the merits of the matter. For, so far, no process has been issued in the matter and there is only order under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code calling upon the police to file report. There is irregularity pointed out by learned advocate, but at this stage, the same need not be gone into. For, the applicants are yet to come in the picture. No process is issued against them. They cannot be branded as "accused". The application is premature. The persons who are in the embryonic stage and have not yet roped in as accused, have no locus standi to challenge that order. The applicants will be entitled to file the application or to take any appropriate step only after the issuance of process. The impugned order cannot be, therefore, quashed in the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Apex Court in Jayant Vitamins Ltd. v. Chaitanyakumar and Anr.,, held that quashing of the investigation by the High Court would not be permissible at such premature stage. Similar view is taken in B.S. Khatri v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.,.

(3.) The legal position is well settled. The challenge to orders which are passed behind back of the applicants and which do not directly affect their liberty cannot be challenged by them. Consequently, this application is dismissed, as the same is premature. In case the applicants are aggrieved by any further order, the liberty to take up all such points which are kept open. No costs.