1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRI. APPLICATION NO.1124 OF 2009 (MANOJ UTTAMCHAND ZAMAD .VS. KASTURCHAND SHIKHARCHAND KOCHAR) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri P.P.Kotwal, Advocate for Applicant. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : APRIL 04, 2009. 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have the process issued for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act quashed and set aside. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant was asked as to why he has not approached the Court of Session and has rushed to this Court directly. He submits that judgment of this Court in V.K. Jain Vs. Pratap V. Padole, reported at 2005(3), Mh.L.J. 778 has not been approved by the Apex Court in Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 234 (SC), the Supreme Court 2 has unmistakably pointed out that the order of issuance of summons is not an interlocutory order and consequently revision would be maintainable. The Court had also said that only because revision petition is maintainable the same by itself would not constitute bar for entertaining application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There can be no doubt that the powers of this Court to entertain an application under Section 482 or under Article 226 of the Constitution are unfettered. However, it does not follow that this Court is obliged to take cognizance of every such matter when an avenue is open to the parties to approach lowest Court competent to deal with the matter. Inherent powers of the Court should be allowed to be invoked only if it is shown that recourse to other remedies available in law are tenuous and would subject the applicant to greater hardship than having the matter disposed of in the High Court. 3. In view of this, leaving liberty to the applicant to approach the Court of Session, by filing appropriate revision petition, the application is disposed of. 3 4. Sessions Court would undoubtedly consider the time spent by the applicant in having detour to this Court in the present proceedings. JUDGE RR.