[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1092 OF 2007 Pravin Surajmal Lunkad ..Petitioner Vs. M/s.Lotus Enterprises and Ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.R.S.Datar Advocate for Petitioner Mr.R.D.Soni Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr.H.J.Dedia A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 28, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 28, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 28, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner, the learned advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2 and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of proceedings relating to Criminal Case No. 308/SS/2005 which is pending before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Girgaum, Mumbai. In the said case, the process has been issued against the petitioner under Sections 138 r.w.142 of Negotiable Instruments Act and under [-2-] Sections 418 and 420 of IPC. In my view, if the process issued against the petitioner is set aside, the proceedings in respect of the petitioner, would come to an end. 3. For the reasons recorded in the order passed by this Court in the case of V.K.Jain Vs. P.V.Padode; V.K.Jain Vs. P.V.Padode; V.K.Jain Vs. P.V.Padode; 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of preferring revision against the order of Magistrate issuing process. Hence, in my view, it would be appropriate that the petitioner prefers a revision before the concerned Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate issuing process. 4. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to prefer the necessary revision before the concerned Sessions Court. The learned advocate for the petitioner makes a statement that the necessary revision will be preferred on or before 12.9.2008. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2-original complainant makes a statement that if revision is preferred by 12.9.2008, no objection will be raised in respect of condonation of delay [-3-] in preferring revision before the Sessions Court. In view of this statement, the learned Judge shall condone the delay if any. 5. On the necessary revision being preferred by the petitioner before the concerned Sessions Court, the concerned Sessions Court shall dispose of the matter on merits after hearing the necessary parties. 6. All contentions available to the parties, are left open. 7. Writ Petition is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]