1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR Criminal Application No.1347/2005 (Mahadeo Gulabrao Dhote and 7 others Vs. Mahadeo Kisan Javkar) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.P. Lavande, J . Dated : June 19, 2007 Heard Mr. Damle, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Kshirsagar, learned counsel holding for Advocate Tathod, learned counsel for the respondent. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicants challenge the order issuing process passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shegaon in Misc. Cri. Case No. 70/2004. By the impugned order process has been issued against the applicants under Sections 294, 420, 426, 447, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Bharat S. Dahanukar Vs. 2 State of Maharashtra (2007 (2) Mh.L.J. 859) learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the order issuing process is revisable and, therefore, the applicants are not entitled to approach this Court directly invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Per contra, Mr. Damle, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in a fit case this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order issuing process and this is a fit case in which this Court should exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court issued Rule in the matter on 15.6.2005 and granted interim relief to the applicants and at that time the respondent was not heard. In Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande vs. Uttam and another (1999 Cri. L.J. 1620) the Apex Court reversed an order passed by this Court holding that order issuing process 3 was an interlocutory order and, held that revision was maintainable against an order issuing process. The learned Single Judge of this Court in Bharat S. Dahanukar's case (supra) has held that ordinarily a party aggrieved by an order issuing process must approach the Sessions Court and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised very sparingly. In view of clear ratio laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, I am of the considered opinion that it would be just and proper to relegate the applicants to the remedy of revision. Since the application was admitted by this Court on 15.6.2005, it would be just and proper to condone delay in filing the revision application against the impugned order provided the applicants file revision application within a reasonable time. At this stage, Mr. Damle, learned counsel for the applicants seeks leave to withdraw the application with liberty to file 4 revision application against impugned order. Mr. Damle further submitted that having regard to the fact that the application was admitted by this Court on 15/6/2005, the delay in filing revision application be condoned. Mr. Damle further states that the applicants shall file revision application against the impugned order within a period of four weeks from today. In view of the above, the prayer of the applicants for withdrawal of the application is allowed with liberty to the applicants to file revision application against impugned order dated 4.2.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shegaon to the concerned Sessions Judge. The applicants shall file revision application within a period of four weeks from today. Learned Sessions Judge or the Additional Sessions Judge to whom the matter may be allotted shall condone the delay and decide the revision application in accordance with law. Interim order granted by this Court on 15/6/2005 shall continue for a period of six 5 weeks. Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. JUDGE A.