..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1975 OF 2008 Vivekanand Mangalprasad Ajgaonkar. ..Petitioner. Versus Shri.Santosh Vitthal Rane and another. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Mahesh V. Rawool, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Patwardhan, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP, for State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 5th December, 2008. DATED : 5th December, 2008. DATED : 5th December, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner - orig.accused, the learned Advocate for respondent No.1 - orig.complainant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The said complaint was numbered as SCC No.68 of 2006 and it was pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Sawantwadi. On 15.1.2008 the learned J.M.F.C.. dismissed the complaint under 256 ..(2).. of Cr.P.C. as the complainant was absent. Being aggrieved thereby the complainant preferred Revision Application before the learned Sessions Judge at Sindhudurg. By judgment and order dated 26th June, 2008 the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision application and restored the complaint to file. Being aggrieved by the said order, this Petition has been preferred. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court ( Coram:F.I.Rebello & A.A.Kumbhakoni,JJ) dated 10th October, 2008 in Criminal Writ Petition No.1930 of 2007 in the case of Gajanan Parshuram Chopade Vs. Mahatma Jyotirao Phule Gajanan Parshuram Chopade Vs. Mahatma Jyotirao Phule Gajanan Parshuram Chopade Vs. Mahatma Jyotirao Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Barloni Barloni Barloni wherein it is held that in a case where an order is passed under Section 256 of Cr.P.C., the only remedy that the complainant would have is to file an appeal and no revision is maintainable against the order of Magistrate under Section 256 of Cr.P.C.. In this view of the matter, the order dated 26th June, 2008 of the learned Sessions Judge allowing Revision Application is set-aside. Liberty ..(3).. is granted to the respondent to prefer appropriate proceedings in respect of order of the Magistrate dated 15.1.2008 dismissing the complaint under Section 256 of Cr.P.C. 4. Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)