Z. A. HAQ, J. :- Heard Shri Mohta, learned Counsel for the applicants, Shri Nayak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant no. I and Shri Amale, learned Counsel for non-applicant no.2. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. This is a bunch of applications filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 8/1/2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nandura directing non-applicant no.1 to conduct investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to file charge-sheet or final report after investigation. The applicants have also prayed for quashing first information reports, which are registered consequent to the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate.

3. The applicants are Directors of the Nandura Sindhu Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Nandura (hereinafter referred to as "the Society"), which is registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The non-applicant no.2, who is a borrower of the Society and in whose favour loan of Rs.5,00,000/- was sanctioned and an amount of Rs.13,07,000/- is due against him, filed criminal complaints before the learned Magistrate and applied under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure praying for issuance of directions for registering first information reports for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 415, 417, 418, 420, 425, 427, 463, 464, 468, 471, 499, 500 and 511 and 120-B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. On receiving the complaints, the learned Magistrate by orders dated 8/1/2013 relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Srinivas Gundluri and others vs. M/s. SPECO Electric Power Construction Corporation and others (2010 Cri.L.J. 4457) : [2010 ALL MR (Cri) 2982 (S.C.)] concluded that as per observations in the above referred judgment, if the complaint discloses cognizable offence, it would be conducive to forward the complaint to Police under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enquiring into the matter. The learned Magistrate has observed that the complaint on its face value discloses cognizable offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code besides other cognizable offences and the offences alleged are of such nature that they require investigation by Police. With the above observations, the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaints to the Police Station, Nandura for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed that charge-sheet or final report be filed after investigation.

4. On perusal of the complaints filed by the non-applicant no.2/complainant, it is clear that the non-applicant no.2 is alleging the illegalities committed by the applicants in conduct of the business of the Society. There is no averment in the complaints, which contains the ingredients constituting offences alleged to have been committed by the applicants.

5. The Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the issue regarding powers and duties of the learned Magistrate while giving directions under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the judgment dated 2/7/2013 delivered in Criminal Application No.258/2013 : [2013 ALL MR (Cri) 3060) (State of Maharashtra vs. Shashikant s/o Eknath Shinde) has laid down as follows:

"46. It may not be out of place to mention that day in and day out we come across various cases wherein the provisions of the Atrocities Act are misused. We find that various complaints are filed immediately after the Gram Panchayat Elections, alleging offences under the Atrocities Act. We have no hesitation in saying that in many of the instances, it was found that the complaints were filed only to settle score with their opponents, after defeat in the Gram Panchayat elections. We have also come across various cases wherein private civil disputes arising out of property, monetary matters,