D. G. DESHPANDE, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondents, and the learned APP.

( 2 ) CRIMINAL Writ Petition No. 2198 of 2005 had come before the Division Bench on 13. 1. 2006, at that time Mr. Chitnis, counsel for the Petitioner informed that some more petitions on the same issues are pending, and he undertook to furnish number of those petitions and accordingly other petitions, i. e. Writ Petition No. 2901 of 2005 and Writ petition No. 781 of 2006 were kept along with Writ petition No. 2198 of 2005. Thereafter, at the time of arguments, Mr. Chitnis stated that though issues involved are same, but facts may be different, and therefore the Writ petitions i. e. Writ Petition No. 2901 of 2005 and writ Petition No. 781 of 2006 should be heard separately.

( 3 ) THE prayer in Writ Petition No. 2198 of 2005 is that proceedings arising out of C. C. No. 466/m/ of 2004 and the order recorded under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court esplanade, Mumbai, and consequent FIR and investigation under MECR No. 14 OF 2004 be quashed and set aside.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 had filed the complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, at Esplanade, Mumbai, against the petitioner. Prayer in the complaint was that the court be pleased to direct the Senior Inspector of l. T. Marg Police Station or the Crime Branch to conduct enquiry under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal procedure Code and investigate the matter and submit report to the court.

( 5 ) THE Magistrate on 30. 8. 2004 passed an order to the following effect :"read complaint. Heard complainant and his advocate. Perused documents. In view of the allegations made, it requires proper investigation as allegations of forgery etc. are made. Hence, the complaint is referred under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal procedure Code to Senior Police Inspector, l. T. Marg Police Station for investigation and report r/o 20. 11. 2004 at 11. 00 a. m. "

( 6 ) THE allegations of the complainant in the said complaint were that in R. A. E. Suit (Stamp) No. 2164 of 2004 pending before the Small Causes Court at Mumbai, the accused i. e. petitioner preferred an application for injunction being I. A. No. 3100 of 2004 and relied upon certain documents. The document which was a letter dated 26. 3. 1988 addressed by Dr. Rustom P. Patel to the Central bank and Executor and Trustees Ltd. the then landlord of the premises, and, that this letter is forged according to the complainant, and, therefore, it was this forgery for which the complaint came to be filed and the Magistrate passed the aforesaid order.

( 7 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the said order, the offence of forgery was registered against them. The petitioner was arrested and later on granted bail, his wife was also granted bail but the petition is filed to quash the said complaint and the order of the Magistrate, referred to above, under Section 156 (3) of the criminal Procedure Code.

( 8 ) MR. Chitnis, firstly, contended that there is no prayer in the complaint for punishing the accused according to law and the only prayer is action under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal procedure Code and therefore the complaint does not satisfy the requirements of the Criminal Procedure code. Secondly, it was contended by him that order under Section 156 (3), is, of far reaching consequences, and, therefore the Magistrate cannot pass the said order mechanically. Accordingly, the impugned order is mechanically passed by the magistrate without requiring the complainant to prove primafacie his case. Thirdly, if the so-called forged letter was in the custody of the small Causes Court then the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the matter unless the complaint in that regard was filed by the court or by some other officer of the court as per the directions of the Court. In other words, according to him, if any offe