1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETIITON NO.97 OF 2009 Yamini Mukesh Vishwamitra : Petitioner V/s. 1. Mukesh S/o. Balwant Vishwamitra, deleted since deceased 2. Balwant N. Vishwamitra & Ors. : Respondents .... Mr.S.S.Redekar for the petitioner. Mr.D. Deshmukh for respondent nos.2 to 6. Mr.D.R.More, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no.7. .... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : MARCH 02, 2010. P.C.: Leave to amend. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard by consent. 3. By way of the present petition, the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 4.10.2008 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Klayan, in Criminal Revision Application No.114/06. 2 4. The petitioner had filed a criminal complaint against the respondents for offences punishable under sections 498-A, 406 read with sections 34, 109 and 114 of the I.P.C. In the said complaint, process came to be issued against all the accused persons. Being aggrieved by that, the respondent nos.4 and 6 herein filed a revision before the learned revisional Court being Criminal Revision Application No.114 of 2006. In the said revision, the learned revisional Court set aside the order of issuance of process against all the accused except accused no.1. Bering aggrieved thereby, the present petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since only the respondent nos.4 and 6 have approached the revisional Court, the learned revisional Court was not justified in setting aside the order issuing process against the respondent nos.2, 3 & 5. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 5 submits that the learned revisional Court in its order and specifically in paragraph 2 has given cogent reasons as to why issuance of process was set aside against all the accused except accused no.1. 7. From the record, it is clear that except the respondent nos.4 and 3 6, the other accused have not approached the learned revisional Court. In my view, therefore, it was not permissible for the learned revisional Court to have set aside the process issued against accused nos.2, 3 and 5 as they have not applied for setting aside the order issuing process. The order of the revisional Court, therefore, insofar as accused nos.2, 3 and 5 is not sustainable in law. 8. The impugned order, therefore, insofar as the accused nos.2, 3 and 5 are concerned is quashed and set aside. However, the order setting aside the issuance of process insofar as the respondent nos.4 and 6 are concerned, the same is maintained. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. B. R. GAVAI, J.