bsb 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 WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2569 OF 2004 PETITION NO. 2569 OF 2004 PETITION NO. 2569 OF 2004 K.P.G. Nair ... Petitioner v/s The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... Respondents Mr.Shirish Gupte, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Udeshi i/by Mr.V.K.Shah for the petitioner. Mr.P.A.Pol, A.P.P. for the respondent No.1 State. Mr.Yashpal Thakur i/by Paras Kuhad & Asso. for the Respondent No.2 CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 16TH JUNE, 2008 16TH JUNE, 2008 16TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has challenged the process issued against him by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 18th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai, in C.C.No.435/S/2002. He has also challenged the order dated 24.6.2003 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate rejecting his application for discharge. The order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 18.6.2004 rejecting the present revision, a part of this order, has also been challenged in the present petition. 2. In the present case, the plea has already been 2 recorded and an affidavit of the complainant has also been filed. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Subramanium Subramanium Subramanium Sethuraman v/s State of Maharashtra & anr., Sethuraman v/s State of Maharashtra & anr., Sethuraman v/s State of Maharashtra & anr., reported reported reported in 2004 Cri.L.J. 4609, in 2004 Cri.L.J. 4609, in 2004 Cri.L.J. 4609, in a summons case, such as the present one, once the plea of the accused is recorded under Section 352 of the Cr.P.C. the procedure contemplated under Chapter XX has to be followed which is, to take the trial to its logical conclusion. 3. In my view, there is no need to entertain this petition after the plea is recorded. The judgments cited at the bar as to whether the process ought to have been issued or not, are not relevant for deciding the present issue as the plea in this case has already been recorded. Besides this, the order dated 24.6.2003 and 18.6.2004 rejecting the application for discharge cannot be called perverse and are not contrary to the well settled principles of law. 4. Writ petition dismissed.