IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.249 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.249 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.249 OF 2008 IN IN IN CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1819 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO.1819 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO.1819 OF 2007. Shri M.H. Patel. ..Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr.M.H.Patel, in person. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 21ST AUGUST,2008. : 21ST AUGUST,2008. : 21ST AUGUST,2008. P.C. 1. The Applicant appearing in person states that the Revision Application preferred by the Accused was not maintainable and therefore, the Revision Application filed by the Accused could not have been restored by this Court. Therefore, he is seeking review of final order passed in the Writ Petition. 2. The Applicant in this Application is the Petitioner in the Writ Petition. He filed a private complaint. On the said private complaint, an order was passed under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. A Revision Application was filed against the said order by one of the Accused. The Revision Application was allowed on 3rd September 2007 by setting aside passed by the learned - 2 - Magistrate. The present Applicant was not heard while passing the said order. Therefore, the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner appearing in person was allowed by this Court by setting aside the order dated 3rd September 2007. The natural consequence of setting aside the order was that the Revision Application was restored and was ordered to be heard on merits. 3. The submission of the Applicant appearing in person is that the Revision Application at the instance of the Accused was not maintainable. The second submission is that the Trial Court is not proceeding to pass further order on the complaint. 4. So far as the first submission is concerned, the Applicant can always appear before the concerned Sessions Court and raise an objection to the maintainability of the Revision Application filed at the instance of the Accused. If such objection to the maintainability of the Revision Application is raised, the concerned Sessions Judge is bound to consider the same in accordance with the law. In so far as the second contention is concerned, the grievance is regarding the inaction on the part of the learned Trial Judge. The said grievance cannot - 3 - be considered in this Review Petition. 5. Subject to what is observed above, no case is made out for review. It is however made clear that order of restoration of the Revision Application shall not be construed to mean that this Court has held that the Revision Application is maintainable. It will be always open for the Petitioner to raise an objection to the maintainability of the Revision Application before the learned Sessions Judge. [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]