..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3353 OF 2008 1. Laxman Madhavrao Kendre, 2. Gaulanbai w/o. Laxman Kendre, 3. Mahadu Laxman Kendre, 4. Tukaram Laxman Kendre, 5. Dyanoba Laxman Kendre, 6. Kashibai Mahadu Kendre, 7. Rasikabai Baburao Dahiphale, 8. Suman Laxman Kendre, & 9. Usha d/o. Nivrutti Phad. ..Applicants. Vs. 1. Mrs.Dnyeshwari w/o. Baliram Kendre, & 2. State of Maharashtra. ..Respondents. ... Mr.J.M.Murkute, Adv. for the applicants. 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. DATE : 16th October, 2008 DATE : 16th October, 2008 DATE : 16th October, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicants and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking quashing of C.C. No.72/I & R/2007 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th Court at Borivali, ..(2).. Mumbai. 3. In the said case, process has been issued against the applicants under Sections 498-A, 406 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. In my opinion if the process issued against the applicants is set aside, the proceedings in respect of the applicants 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 applicants have an efficacious remedy by way of preferring revision against the order of Magistrate issuing process. Hence, in my view, it would be appropriate that the applicants prefer a revision before the concerned Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate issuing process. 5. Liberty is granted to the applicants to prefer the necessary revision before the concerned Sessions Court. The learned Advocate for the applicants makes a statement that the necessary revision will be preferred within eight weeks from ..(3).. today. In view of this statement, the trial Court shall not proceed with the trial for a period of eight weeks. 6. If the revision is preferred within eight weeks, delay, if any, in preferring the revision be condoned. On the necessary revision being preferred by the applicants before the concerned Sessions Court, the concerned Sessions Court shall dispose of the matter on merits after hearing the necessary parties. 7. Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]