..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2309 OF 2008 Dr.Prithi Paul Singh Sethi. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Subhash Jha, Sr.Counsel i/b. Law Global for the petitioner. Mr.Vinit V. Jain, Adv. i/b. Mr.Girish Kulkarni, Adv. for respondent No.2. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 3rd December, 2008. DATED : 3rd December, 2008. DATED : 3rd December, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner - orig.accused, the learned Advocate for respondent No.2 - orig.complainant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The respondent No.2 - orig.complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner which is numbered as C.C. No.172/M/2006 and it is pending before the ..(2).. learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai. In the said case, by order dated 13.5.2008 process came to be issued against the petitioner under Section 465, 467 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the said process and as well as the complaint. 3. It is seen that the stage of the case is that only process has been issued. If process is quashed the entire proceeding would come to an end. 4. For the reasons recorded in the order passed by this Court in the case of V.K.Jain Vs. P.V.Padode; V.K.Jain Vs. P.V.Padode; V.K.Jain Vs. P.V.Padode; 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court I am of the opinion that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of preferring revision against the order of Magistrate issuing process. Hence, in my view, it would be appropriate that the petitioner prefers a revision before the concerned Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate issuing process. 5. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to prefer the necessary revision before the concerned Sessions Court. The learned Advocate for the petitioner makes a ..(3).. statement that the necessary revision will be preferred within four weeks from today. The learned Advocate for respondent No.2 fairly states that no objection would be raised in respect of delay in filing the revision. In view of this statement, the learned Sessions Judge shall condone the delay and dispose of the revision on merits. 6. All contentions of both sides are kept open. 7. Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]