(-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. 329 OF 2005 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 329 OF 2005 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 329 OF 2005 Smt. Kanchan N. Bagade ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra ...Respondents ..... Mr. R.M. Kedia, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. V.B. Konde Deshmukh, A.P.P. for State. ..... CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. DATED: 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2005 DATED: 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2005 DATED: 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2005 P. C.:- P. C.:- P. C.:- 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of complaint No.461/2003 which is pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, esplanade, Mumbai. In the said case, process has been issued against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate committed an error in issuing process and the said process deserves to be set aside. It is further submitted that if the process issued against the petitioner is set aside, the proceedings in respect of the petitioner would come to an end. (-2-) 3. For the reasons recorded in the decision of this Court in the case of V.K. Jain & Ors. Vs. Pratap V.K. Jain & Ors. Vs. Pratap V.K. Jain & Ors. Vs. Pratap V. Padode and Anr, reported in 2005(3) Mh.L.J. 778, V. Padode and Anr, reported in 2005(3) Mh.L.J. 778, V. Padode and Anr, reported in 2005(3) Mh.L.J. 778, in my opinion, 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 revision before the concerned Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate issuing process. 4. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to prefer revision before the concerned Sessions Court. The learned advocate for the petitioner states that the necessary revision would be preferred within a period of five weeks from today. Learned advocate for the petitioner states that the matter is kept before the trial court on 4.10.2005. In view of this statement, the trial Court shall not proceed with the trial on 4.10.2005 and for a period of three weeks thereafter. 5. On the necessary revision being preferred by the petitioner 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. 7. Office to issue an authenticated copy of this order to the parties. *****