The main legal point established in the judgment is the scope of the Magistrate's power to order investigation under section 156(3) and the court's authority to quash such orders under section 482, based on the nature of the allegations and the need for detailed investigation.

1) The proceeding is filed under sections 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the relief of setting aside and quashing of the order dated 28-11-2007 made in RCC No.1058 of 2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nanded by which the learned Judicial Magistrate has directed police to make investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Relief of quashing of the FIR of CR No.122 of 2008 which came to be registered on the basis of the order made by the Judicial Magistrate is also claimed. Both the sides are heard. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is also heard.

2) Respondent No.2 of the present proceeding has contended that he deals in pesticides and seeds and he is doing business in Nanded. Accused No.2 Anil Kulkarni is the manager of accused No.1 and they are doing business of supply of hybrid seeds. Accused No.1 is the Director of Global Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd, the office of which is situated in Gujarat. The complainant had agreed to become the Distributor of this company after negotiations with accused Nos.1 and 2.

3) It is the case of the complainant that in the month of June 2005 accused No.1 visited Nanded and he proposed package for seed of wheat. Representation was made to the complainant the seed worth Rs.15 lakh will be supplied but the complainant will be required to pay in advance Rs.9.58 lakh prior to 14-12-2005. As there was possibility of making huge profit, the complainant got attracted to the scheme and he made payments by cash and by giving bank Drafts and upto 10-12-2005 he made payment of R.9.58 lakh. The accused No.1 had promised to reach the seeds on or before 15-12-2005.

4) When the seeds were not reached, the complainant gave notice through Advocate. Accused No.1 on phone requested for time and promised to settle the matter amicably and so immediate action was not taken by the complainant. As the promise was not fulfilled and even the amount was not returned, private complaint came to be filed in the year 2007. Learned Judicial Magistrate made order of investigation on 28-11-2007.

5) The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the challenge to the order is two fold. He submitted that when in the complaint no prayer was made to refer the matter for investigation and when prayer was made for issue process, learned Judicial Magistrate committed error in making the order of investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The second submission is in respect of nature of dispute. Learned counsel submitted that on the face of the record it can be said that the dispute is of civil nature and so the Magistrate ought not to have made such order.

6) In support of the first contention, the learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the case reported as 2010 (1) Mh.L.J. 411 (Panchabhai v. State of Maharashtra) (Full Bench). In this case the Full Bench of this Court has discussed various provisons like sections 2(d), 156(3), 154, 190 etc. of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The power of the Magistrate is discussed.

There cannot be any dispute over the proposition that the Magistrate is expected to apply mind even before making the order of investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as it is a judicial order. The order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate in the present case shows that the learned Magistrate formed opinion that the allegations require detail investigation. In view of nature of allegations made against the present applicant which are already quoted it can be said that the Magistrate has not committed any error. The accused are from different State, they came to Maharashtra and by giving promise they collected money and they did not supply the goods. These allegations need to be considered as mentioned in the complaint and at this stage the probable defence cannot be considered. It is upto the Magistrate to decide as to whether he needs to record verification and then consider the ma