IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2449 OF 2007 Mr.Sadik Mohammad Jalal & Anr. .. Applicants Vs. Goregaon Co-op. Urban Bank & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Rajendra Sorankar for the applicants. Mr.Omkar Warange for the respondent No.1. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P for the respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 11th September 2008. : 11th September 2008. : 11th September 2008. P.C.: . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. The learned A.P.P appears for the State. Considering the narrow controversy involved in this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code), the application is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. The applicants have beein arraigned as accused in the complaint filed by the 1st respondent alleging commission of offences under section 420, 422, 207 and section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The process was issued on the said complaint by order dated 26th July : 2 : 2006. A revision application under section 397 of the said Code was filed by the applicants before the Sessions Court. The said revision application has been rejected by judgment and order dated 03rd November 2006 by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigad at Alibag by holding that a revision application under section 397 of the said Code was not maintainable against an order of issue of process as the said order was an interlocutory order. 3. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I find that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendrakumar Sitaram Pande & Ors. Vs. Uttam & Anr [(1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 134] as well as a decision of the learned Judge of this Court in the case of V.K.Jain & Ors. Vs. Pratap Padode & Anr (2005 (3) Maharashtra Law Journal Page 778). The learned Sessions Judge has referred to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Subramanium Sethuraman Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ( 2005 (1) Maharashtra Law Journal 626). The learned single Judge of this Court in the case of V.K.Jain (supra) has considered the said decision and has come to the conclusion that a revision application challenging an : 3 : order of issue of process is maintainable under section 397 of the said Code. The learned Sessions Judge has completely ignored the said binding precedents. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order will have to be quashed and set aside and the revision application will have to be remanded for hearing on merits. 4. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) The impugned judgment and order dated 03rd November 2006 is quashed and set aside and the Criminal Revision Application No.90 of 2006 is restored to the file of the learned Sessions Judge. (ii) The parties are directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Raigad at Alibag on 13th October 2008 at 11.00 a.m. (iii) The revision application shall be decided afresh in accordance with law. The revision application shall be decided as expeditously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of appearance. Till the final disposal of the revision : 4 : application, ad-interim relief granted by this Court on 14th August 2007 will continue to operate. (iv) All contentions of the parties on merits of the pending revision application are expressly kept open. (v) Application is partly allowed in above terms with no orders as to costs. (vi) The parties and concerned Sessions Court to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. (A.S.Oka,J)