The court emphasized that a Magistrate's discretion under Section 156(3) must be exercised judiciously, especially when preliminary inquiries are ongoing.

JUDGMENT :

1. The issues involved in the instant petitions are interconnected to each other, as such are being taken up for disposal together with the consent of appearing counsel for the parties.

CRM(M) 112/2024

2. In the instant petition, the petitioners herein have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court enshrined in Section 482 Cr PC, 1973 (for short, the Code) seeking quashing of order dated 16-12- 2023 (for short the impugned order) passed by the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate, Passenger Tax and Shops Establishment Act, Jammu (for short, the Magistrate) in the complaint filed by respondent 3 herein against the petitioners herein being complaint no. 10736/2023 wherein the Magistrate while passing the impugned order has observed that the complaint prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence necessitating investigation and has consequently directed the Crime Branch, Jammu to undertake an investigation thereto in terms of Section 156(3) of the Code.

3. The factual matrix as delineated in the instant petition and the reply filed thereto by respondent 3 is extensive, however, a brief summary of the facts leading to the passing of the impugned order and the institution of the instant petition are detailed out hereunder:

• The petitioner 1 and respondent 3 herein are the sons of one late Shyam Lal Tickoo who was engaged in the business of selling Kerosene, Light Diesel Oil, and High-Speed Diesel as an agent of Burma-Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Limited [now known as Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL)]. Upon the demise of the said Shyam Lal Tickoo, the father of the petitioner 1 and respondent 3 herein, in the year 1966, both parties continued the said business left behind by their father jointly and severely under a partnership firm namely "Shyamlal & Co, Srinagar and Jammu" with its head office at Budshah Chowk, Srinagar, Kashmir. A partnership deed to that effect was executed on 27-07-1968, and subsequently with the intent to modify the terms of the said partnership, a fresh deed was executed on 24-07-1975, effective from 01-08-1967.

• According to the petitioner 1 herein since 2016, owing to his ill health, he was unable to manage actively the affairs of the partnership business as a result whereof, during the said period, the business suffered financial losses. However, upon multiple audits conducted by the firm's Auditors and also an independent Auditor from New Delhi, it was revealed that the firm had incurred losses due to the fraudulent and dishonest acts committed by respondent 3 herein, who, according to the petitioner 1 herein taking undue advantage of his absence, had surreptitiously sold the assets of the firm at an undervalued price with the intention of wrongful gain to the department of the firm, and in furtherance whereof, the respondent 3 herein forged the signatures of the petitioner 1 herein, and upon discovery of said fraudulent acts of the respondent 3 herein, lodged a detailed complaint on 24-02-2022 before Senior Superintendent of Police Crime Branch, Srinagar, pursuant to which a preliminary enquiry/verification bearing No. PVK-41/2022 was initiated.

• As per the petitioner 1 herein, as a counterblast to the filing of the said complaint, respondent 3 herein lodged a false and frivolous complaint under sections 419, 420, 465, 468, and 471, read with sections 34/129-B of the Indian Penal Code, before Senior Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Jammu being respondent 2 herein, consequent to which the Special Crime Wing of Crime Branch, Jammu initiated a preliminary enquiry/verification bearing no. PVJ-57/2023

• The petitioner 1 herein, however, sought transfer of the aforesaid complaint filed by respondent 3 herein to Crime Branch, Srinagar while submitting a representation before respondent 2 herein and pending consideration of the said representation, the petitioner 1 herein, through his attorney being petitioner 3 herein, instituted a petition being