1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 3429 OF 2009 Rustam s/o Shankar Jakate v. Tukaram s/o Pandurang Dhagekar & ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's and Registrar's orders orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Sandeep Chopde Advocate for the applicant. Mr. A.S. Sonare, A.P.P. for the Respondent no.3. ..... CORAM: A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 19 th JANUARY,_2010. Admittedly the applicant has not taken recourse to the alternate remedy available under law, i.e. filing revision before the Sessions Court. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision in Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra – 2009 ALL MR (Cri.) 234 (SC). This judgment does not say that the High Court must entertain all matters in which summons are issued and it cannot be dismissed only on that ground. However, I find that investigation in the case will have to be made and it will not be possible to make such investigation in the application under Section 482 of 2 Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence this application is dismissed with liberty reserved in favour of the applicant to file revision before the Sessions Judge. Needless to say that the period spent in the present application shall be good ground for condonation of delay. JUDGE /TA/