1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3250 OF 2009 Arenja Industries Ltd. & Ors. : Petitioners V/s. M/s.President Enterprises & Anr. : Respondents .... WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3251 OF 2009 Arenja Industries Ltd. & Ors. : Petitioners V/s. Pravin Nanji Gada & Anr. : Respondents .... AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3252 OF 2009 Arenja Industries Ltd. & Ors. : Petitioners V/s. Jagdish Chimanlal Shah & Anr. : Respondents .... Mr.M.M.Vashi i/b. M/s.M.P.Vashi & Associates for the petitioners. Mr.Raju Thakre for respondent no.1. Mr.J.P.Kharge, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. .... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : APRIL 19, 2010. P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. 2 The learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard by consent. 2. By way of the present petitions, the petitioners challenge the order dated 7.10.2009 by which the learned revisional Court has set aside the order dated 2.3.2009 and directed an investigation under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. 3. By the impugned order before the revisional Court, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has only directed the complainant to examine himself on oath before he could consider the matter regarding issuance of process to the accused persons. 4. The matter of issuance of process is a discretionary order. Unless it is found that the discretion exercised by the trial Court is with perversity, it is not permissible for the revisional Court to substitute the discretion exercised by the trial Court. On the facts of the case, the learned Magistrate found that before taking the drastic step of issuance of process, it was necessary that the complainant should examine himself on oath. 5. The discretion which was exercised by the trial Court cannot be 3 said to have been exercised with perversity. As a matter of fact, the question as to whether the revision itself was tenable or not would arise inasmuch the order passed by the learned Magistrate is purely interlocutory in nature. 6. I am of the considered view that there was no occasion for the learned revisional Court to have interfered with the discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate. 7. The impugned order dated 7.10.2009 is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Magistrate for proceeding further with the complaint as directed by the order dated 2.3.2009. 8. Needless to state that this Court has not observed anything on merits of the matter and the parties would be at liberty to raise all contentions as are available to them in law. 9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. B. R. GAVAI, J.