(-1-) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 35 OF 2005 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 35 OF 2005 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 35 OF 2005 Rashida R. Merchant & Ors ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ..... Mr. C.K. Talekar i/b Mr. Mahesh Mule, Advocate for Petitioners Mr. A.S. Khan, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. M.S. Mhambray, A.P.P. for State. ..... CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. DATED: 9TH AUGUST, 2005 DATED: 9TH AUGUST, 2005 DATED: 9TH AUGUST, 2005 P. C.:- P. C.:- P. C.:- 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners, the learned advocate for the respondent No.1 i.e. original complainant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of process issued against them in Criminal Case No.186/S of 2004 which is pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai. In the said case, process has been issued against the petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. For the reasons recorded in my order dated 13th June, 2005 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.213 of 2005 and order dated 21st June, 2005 passed in (-2-) Criminal Application No.550 of 2005, the petitioners have an efficacious remedy of preferring revision against the order of Magistrate issuing process. Hence, in my opinion, it would be appropriate that the petitioners prefer revision before the concerned Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate issuing process. 4. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to prefer revision before the concerned Sessions Court. The learned advocate for the petitioners states that the necessary revision would be preferred within a period of four weeks from today. In view of this statement, interim relief granted by this Court is extended for a period of four weeks from today. It is made clear that this interim relief is in respect of the present petitioners only. The learned advocate for the respondent No.2 i.e. original complainant fairly states that no objection would be raised in respect of delay in filing revision before the learned Sessions Judge. 5. On the necessary revision being preferred by the petitioners before the concerned Sessions Court, the concerned Sessions Court shall dispose of the same on merits after hearing necessary parties. 6. Writ Petition is disposed of. (-3-) *****