- 1 - 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 WRIT PETITION NO.1031 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1031 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1031 OF 2008 Azam Khan ...Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.S.V.Marwadi i/b Mr.S.P.Narkar for the petitioner Mr.Y.S.Shinde A.P.P. for State Mr.Tanvir Shaikh for Respondent No.2 CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : JULY 29,2008 : JULY 29,2008 : JULY 29,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the Advocate for the Applicant and the Advocate for the second Respondent. The order dated 21st July 2008 reads thus : "1) The Advocate for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner has kept the demand draft in the sum of Rs.46,102/- ready. He states that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Petitioner, he is prepared to pay a further amount in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the second Respondent if the second respondent is ready to compound the offence as against the Petitioner. 2) The learned Counsel for the second Respondent seeks time to take instructions. Stand over till 27th July 2008." - 2 - 2. The Advocate for the second Respondent on instructions of the second Respondent who is personally present in the court states that the second Respondent is not interested in accepting the offer of the petitioner and is not interested in compounding the offence. 3. The petitioner is arraigned as one of the accused in a private complaint filed by the second respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Process has been issued on the said complaint. It will be always open for the applicant to file a Revision Application before the appropriate Sessions Court for challenging the order issuing process. 4. Therefore, this petition need not be entertained and the same is disposed of by granting a liberty to the petitioner to file a Revision Application before the appropriate Sessions Court. 5. If Revision Application is filed before the appropriate Sessions Court, the concerned court is bound to take a note of the fact that the Writ Petition is filed on 24th April 2008 which remained pending in this court till today. The concerned court will also consider the fact that the petitioner had made an offer to compound the offence which is - 3 - not accepted by the second Respondent. 6. To enable the petitioner to file the Revision Application before the appropriate Sessions Court and to enable the petitioner to apply for appropriate relief, proceeding of the complaint against the petitioner will remain stayed for a period of six weeks from today. 7. All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. 8. It is obvious that the willingness shown by the petitioner to pay the amounts as reflected in the orders of this court was obviously without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner in the pending complaint. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE