JUDGMENT - PALSHIKAR V.G., J.:---By all these petitions the petitioners, who are accused persons in the original complaint filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay have challenged the order passed by that learned Magistrate directing the investigation under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. All these petitions arise out of one criminal complaint filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Esplanade in Bombay, which is registered as Case No. 12/I R/2003. It is filed by one Stany Saldanha, authorised representative of M/s. Smay Investments Limited, Bombay. All these petitioners in these petitions are the accused named in this complaint. All of them seek quashing of the complaint as also quashing of the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing investigation under section 156(3) of the Cri.P.C. Since all these facts giving rise to these petitions, flow from one complaint and the parties to these complaints are common, all these petitions are being so disposed of by this common judgment. It will cover and dispose of all these petitions filed in this regard.

3. The original complaint as filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, complains of offences under sections 120-B, 420, 464, 465, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, being committed by the accused persons named in the complaint. Perusing the complaint, the learned Magistrate passed an order directing investigation under section 156(3) of Cri.P.C. by the economic offences wing, Crime Branch CID, Bombay. Issuance of this order as also the original complaint are sought to be quashed by these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Rule was issued in Writ Petition No. 661 of 2003 along with Writ Petition No. 900/03 and they were to be listed for final hearing on 16th July, 2003. Ultimately the arguments accordingly were heard on that day and the matter was closed for judgment.

5. After the rule was issued in this case and before the rule was taken up for final disposal, three more petitions have been filed by three other petitioners, which are also kept along with these petitions for final disposal. We have heard all the Counsel and we are disposing of all these petitions by this order. We would first notice the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and the replies of the respondents and then will proceed to consider the same thereafter. The arguments on behalf of the petitioners, seeking quashing of the complaint as also the order under section 156(3) of Cri.P.C., stated in nutshell are as under:

1) That the perusal of the entire complaint makes out no offence and therefore it is liable to be quashed.

2) The complaint may disclose certain offences, defined in sections 191, 192, 193, 467 and 471 of I.P.C., as the tile of the complaint shows. But the provisions of section 195 of Cri.P.C. specifically bars taking of cognizance in such cases. Therefore the complaint is liable to be quashed.

3) From the entire recitals of the complaint, it is obvious that the whole dispute is purely of civil nature and filing of the complaint is motivated to harass the petitioners and therefore it is liable to be quashed.

4) The complaint itself discloses that the purposes of filing the complaint is to take immediate action against the petitioners as the civil proceeding may drag for years. According to the learned Counsel therefore it is obvious that the complaint is motivated by mala fides and does not disclose any evidence and on this ground also the complaint is liable to be quashed.

6. The learned Counsel appearing for various petitioners have relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court of India for each of the propositions that they have made.

7. These submissions are opposed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-the original complainant.

1) The petition is not maintainable at all as the petitioners have alternate remedy of challenging the order under section 156(3) of Cri.P.C.

2) The pet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document