IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.122 OF 2005 Haji Farooque Chamadawala ...Applicants Versus Mohammed Hanif Qureshi & Anr. ...Respondents ...... None for Applicants. Ms.M.M.Deshmukh, A.P.P. for Respondent No.2. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DECEMBER 23, 2005. DECEMBER 23, 2005. DECEMBER 23, 2005. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. None present for the Applicants when the matter is called out. 2. Applicants ought to have resorted to remedy of revision in view of the exposition of this Court in the cases of V.K.Jain & Ors. vs. V.K.Jain & Ors. vs. V.K.Jain & Ors. vs. Pratap V.Padode reported in 2005(3) Mh.L.J. 778 Pratap V.Padode reported in 2005(3) Mh.L.J. 778 Pratap V.Padode reported in 2005(3) Mh.L.J. 778, and in the unreported decision in the case of in the case of in the case of Chetan R.Nagda & Ors. vs. N.D.Pawar & Anr. in Chetan R.Nagda & Ors. vs. N.D.Pawar & Anr. in Chetan R.Nagda & Ors. vs. N.D.Pawar & Anr. in Criminal Writ Petition No.1023 of 2005 dated 8th Criminal Writ Petition No.1023 of 2005 dated 8th Criminal Writ Petition No.1023 of 2005 dated 8th : 2 : December 2005 December 2005 December 2005. 3. Accordingly, no interference is warranted in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Dismissed. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.