[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN.APPLN.NO.224 OF 2008 Shri.Anant Vitthal Nikam and Anr. ..Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ... Mr. Abhaykumar Apte Advocate for Petitioners Mr. Rajesh More A.P.P. for the State Mr. A.B.Vagyani Advocate for Respondent No.2 ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners-original accused, learned advocate for the respondent no.2-original complainant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. Pimpri, Pune whereby process came to be issued against the petitioners in CC No. 3508 of 2007 under Sections 504, 506, and 509 of IPC. The petitioners are seeking quashing of said process. [-2-] 3. 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 petitioners have an efficacious remedy of preferring revision against the order of Magistrate issuing process. Hence, in my view, it would be appropriate that the petitioners prefer a revision before the concerned Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate issuing process. 4. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to prefer the necessary revision before the concerned Sessions Court. The learned advocate for the petitioners makes a statement that the necessary revision will be preferred on or before 20.10.2008. In view of this statement, the trial Court shall not proceed with the trial in CC No.3508 of 2007 till 20.10.2008. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2-original complainant makes a statement that no objection will be raised in respect of condonation of delay in preferring revision before the Sessions Court. In view of this statement, the learned Judge shall condone the [-3-] delay if any in preferring revision. 5. On the necessary revision being preferred by the petitioners before the concerned Sessions Court, the concerned Sessions Court shall dispose of the matter on merits after hearing necessary parties. 6. Revision Application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]