1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Application No.1874 of 2005 Libord Securities Ltd. & ors. Applicants Vs. Bhairav International & anr. Respondents Mr.A.K.Maheshwari i/b. Miss Daksha Shah for applicant. Mr.S.V.Marwadi for resp.no.1. Mr.D.P.Adsule, APP for State. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. July 3, 2007. P.C. . This Court in its order dated 17th October 2006 had recorded the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that the learned Magistrate had recorded the plea against all the accused persons including the applicants and the learned counsel for the applicants had sought time to take instructions on the said issue. . It is stated across the bar by the learned counsel for the applicants now that the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 was correct and the plea has been recorded. . The learned counsel for the applicants further 2 states that the plea has been recorded after their revision application was dismissed by the Sessions Court. He further states that relevant facts were suppressed and if they were brought before the trial Court by the complainant, the complaint would have been dismissed as being frivolous and vexatious. . This Court has already taken a view in Criminal Writ Petition No.2027 of 2004 that once the plea has been recorded the accused has to undergo trial for reaching to the logical conclusion of the case and it would not be, therefore, appropriate to entertain the writ petition. . The petition is rejected summarily and this order will not come in the way of the petitioners to raise all the grounds including the grounds mentioned hereinabove before the trial Court for dismissal of the complaint on merits. . Trial expedited. (B.H.MARL