K. J. ROHEE, J. :- Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to quash order dated 25-7-2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1, Nagpur in Regular Criminal Complaint Case No. 2462 of 2008, Govindlal slo Bansilal Sarda vs. Narayandas slo Hiralalji Sarda and others.

3. The facts which give rise to the present petition are as under:

The petitioners and respondent NO.2 are close relatives. It is alleged that Plot No. 84 situated at Central Avenue, Nagpur was allotted by Nagpur Improvement Trust to respondent No.2 in the year 1959 on lease for a period of 30 years. Besides respondent No. 2 nobody had any right to the said plot. On 21-2-2008 respondent No.2 lodged a written report at Police Station, Ganeshpeth (Nagpur) against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 alleging therein that they executed Release Deed on 11-3-1985 by forging the signature of respondent No.2. They also moved application before Nagpur Improvement Trust by forging the signature of respondent No.2. They mislead Nagpur Improvement Trust by cheating with intent to deprive respondent No. 2 of his valuable immovable property. Respondent No.2 claimed in the report that he came to know about the illegalities committed by petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 through a public notice published in the newspaper on 18-1-2008, whereby petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 claimed right in the property of respondent No.2.

4. On 24-2-2008 the Duty Officer of Police Station, Ganeshpeth (Nagpur) informed the son of respondent No.2 that the matter is of civil nature; that NC No. 64/2008 was entered and that respondent NO.2 may approach the Court.

5. On 21/22-7-2008 respondent No.2 filed a complaint before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1, Nagpur against the petitioners. It was registered as Regular Criminal Complaint Case No. 2462/2008. Respondent No. 2 prayed for a direction to Police Station Officer, Police Station, Ganeshpeth (Nagpur) to investigate the matter by registering crime and in the alternative to take cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 468, 506-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and to punish the petitioners.

6. On 25-7-2008 Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1, Nagpur passed an order directing that the complaint be sent to Ganeshpeth Police Station for investigation. He directed the Investigating Officer to register offence and to submit report accordingly. The present writ petition is filed on 1-8-2008 challenging the said order. On the same day the said order was stayed only to the extent it directed to register offence.

7. Preliminary submissions were filed on behalf of respondent No.2. According to respondent No.2 the petition itself is not tenable; that the impugned order is revisable; that an alternate remedy is available to the petitioners and that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked. It was also pointed out that the impugned order has already been given effect to inasmuch as the police authorities registered Crime No. M-02/2008 punishable under sections 406, 420, 468, 506(B) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 31-7-2008. Thus, the interim order granted by this Court on 1-8-2008 became in fructuous and as such the petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. We have heard Mr. R. M. Daga, Advocate with Mr. M. P. Khajanchi, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. D. M. Kale, APP for respondent No. 1/State and Mr. Shyam Dewani, Advocate for respondent No.2.

9. At the outset, Mr. Daga, the learned counsel for the petitioners, invited our attention to the impugned order, which reads as under:

"Perused complaint and documents. Heard learned Advocate for complainant. Having regard to facts and circumstances of case it reveals that the complaint required detail investigation by police machinery to take cognizance of offence. Hence, com