IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1617 OF 2007 Mrs.Priya P. Deshpande & Anr. .. Applicants Vs. Smt.Shashi S. Rajpurkar & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Indrajeet R. Kulkarni for the applicants. Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 15th September 2008. : 15th September 2008. : 15th September 2008. P.C.: . The applicants were arraigned as accused in a complaint filed by the 1st respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The applicants were convicted by the learned Magistrate. An appeal against the order of conviction was filed by the applicants which has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 2. A revision application was filed being Criminal Revision Application No.14 of 2007 in this Court for challenging the order of conviction and the order in appeal. On 17th January 2007, when the said criminal revision application came up before this Court, the applicants were directed to deposit the amount of : 2 : compensation within two weeks. On 25th January 2007, when the revision application came up before this Court, a letter written by the applicants to their advocate was taken on record and in view of what is stated in the said letter, the revision application was disposed of as withdrawn. 3. By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 a prayer is made for quashing the same judgments and orders which were challenged by filing the aforesaid revision application. 4. As stated earlier, the revision application was unconditionally withdrawn. The fact that revision application was filed and was withdrawn has been disclosed in this application. The contention raised in this application is that the learned Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint filed by the 1st respondent and therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction is void. 5. As pointed out earlier, a revision application filed against the impugned orders was unconditionally withdrawn by the applicants. The revision application was permitted to be withdrawn by order dated 25th : 3 : January 2007 and by filing this application on 05th May 2007 the applicants are seeking quashing of impugned orders by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the said Code. It is settled position of law that the power under section 482 of the said Code has to be exercised sparingly and that also in very rare cases. In view of unconditional withdrawal of the criminal revision application, this is not a case where the power under section 482 of the said Code can be exercised. Hence, the application is rejected. (A.S.Oka,J)