IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.WRIT PETITION NO.2459 OF 2006 ALONGWITH CRI.WRIT PETITION NO.2462 OF 2006 ALONGWITH CRI.WRIT PETITION NO.2472 OF 2006 Mr.Pradeep M. Vakil .. Petitioner (In all the petitions) Vs. M/s.Indusind Media & Communications & Ors. .. Respondents (In all the petitions) Mr.Santosh Kapadiguppi i/by Mr.Kiran Kulkarni for the petitioner. Mrs.Vandana Jaisingh for Respondent No.1. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P for the Respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 10th July 2008. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. In these three petitions, the 1st respondent is the complainant who has filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. The petitioner in these three petitions has been arraigned as one of the accused in said complaints. : 2 : Initially, the petitioner filed applications under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in this Court for quashing the complaints. However, this Court relegated the petitioner to avail remedy of filing revision applications under section 397 of the said Code to the Sessions Court. As per the liberty granted by this Court, the petitioner filed revision applications before the Sessions Court. Revision Applications have been dismissed. 3. Apart from various submissions, the contention of the petitioner is that on plain reading of the complaint, no case was made out for issuing process as against the petitioner. 4. The Revision Applications were filed by the petitioner in view of the liberty granted by this Court to the petitioner. When it was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not at all adverted to the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner on the basis of averments made in the complaints, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that instead of keeping these petitions pending in this Court, the Revision Applications be directed to be heard afresh. : 3 : 5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, I pass the following order:- (i) The impugned judgments and orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Revision Application Nos.1444 of 2005, 1445 of 2005 and 1446 of 2005 are quashed and set aside and the said Revision Applications are restored to the file of the Sessions Court. (ii) Till the disposal of the Revision Applications before the Sessions Court, the ad-interim order passed by this Court on 17th August 2007 which was clarified by order dated 19th September 2007 will continue to operate. (iii) The Revision Applications shall be heard and disposed of as expeditiously as possible. (iv) All contentions of the parties on merits of the Revision Applications are expressly kept open. (v) Writ Petitions are partly allowed in above terms with no orders as to costs. : 4 : (A.S.Oka,J)