* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.180 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 57 OF 2003 (Pravin Premchand Shah ....Applicant V/s. Nitesh Pravinchandra Parekh & Ors. .....Respondent Mr.Mobin Solkar i/by.Mr.Prakash Naik,adv.for applicant. Mr.I.P.Bagaria,adv.for respondent. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, APP for State-respondent. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for both sides. 2. This criminal application is filed by the original complainant for permission to intervene in Criminal * 2 * Revision Application No. 57 of 2003 filed by respondent no.1. The applicant had lodged complaint with L.T.Marg Police station stating that on 12th November, 1995 at about midnight one Mr.Anil Dhanak telephoned from Dubai at the residence of the applicants' brother inquiring about his son Himanshu who had come to Mumbai from Dubai. He informed that Himanshu was required to go to Banaras with one Mr.Pratap Dhakan on 14th November, 2005. On 14th November, 2005 Pratap Dhakam came to the applicants residence at 11.30 p.m. And left with Himanshu for airport. Since that day, Himanshu has been missing. It appears that thereafter, the complainant received telephone calls stating that Himashu had committed fraud to the extent of Rs.40,00,000/- at Dubai and demanding that the applicant repays the amount. On the complaint of the applicant, the police registeread offence and filed chargesheet on completion of the investigation. The case was then committed to the court of Sessions and was numbered as Sessions Case No. 565 of 1998. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge vide order dated 16th January, 2003. Respondent no.1 has preferred the present Criminal Revision Application to challenge the order of * 3 * framing of charge. The applicant herein seeks to have a hearing in that application. 3. Mr.Solkar, learned counsel for the applicant states that at this stage he will not insist for the relief in terms of prayer clause (c) which is for vacating the interim stay granted in the present revision application. Considering the facts of the case, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). By prayer clause (b), the applicant seeks expeditious hearing of the revision application. Mr.Bagaria has no objection for expeditious hearing. Criminal Revision Application No. 57 of 2009 be added to the board of final hearing in the week commencing 16th March, 2009. [JUDGE]