1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No.3376/2007 Sunil Gulabrao Manatkar and another Vs. Kishor Narayanrao Aware ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE, J. DATED : 21st April, 2008. Heard Mr. Chopde, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Wachasundar, learned counsel for the respondent. By this application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants, who are accused in Regular Criminal Case No. 488/2006 pending before 4th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola takes exception to the order dated 20.2.2007 passed by the learned Magistrate issuing process against the applicants under Sections 504 and 506 (Part II) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Chopde, learned counsel for the applicants placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and others (2004(4) Mh.L.J. 274) submitted that against an order issuing process application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal 2 Procedure is maintainable. Per contra, Mr. Wachasunder, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that remedy by way of an application under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is available to the applicants and applicants can very well make an application for discharge before the learned Magistrate. Learned Single Judge of this Court (Justice Smt. V.K. Tahilramani) in V.K. Jain and others Vs. Pratap V. Padode and another reported in 2005 (3) Mh.L.J. 778 after considering several judgments including the judgment in Adalat Prasad's case (supra) held that order issuing process is revisable. I am in respectful agreement with the judgment given by the learned Single Judge. It is also pertinent to note that the learned Single Judge has also considered the judgment in Adalat's case and recorded finding that order issuing process is revisable as has been held by the Apex Court in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande and others Vs. Uttam and another (1999(2) Mh.L.J.134). This being position, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case in which applicants must resort to revisional remedy before the Sessions Court inasmuch as this Court has consistently held that against an order passed by the Magistrate ordinarily a person has to 3 approach Sessions Court and not the High Court unless exceptional circumstances are made. At this stage, Mr. Chopde submits that that the applicants have preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by placing reliance upon judgment in Adalat Prasad's case and, therefore, in case this Court is inclined to relegate the applicants to revisional remedy, time of eight weeks be granted to the applicants to file revision before appropriate Sessions Court and delay in filing Criminal Revision Application against impugned order be condoned and in the mean time the proceedings before the learned Magistrate be stayed. Mr. Wachasunder, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer for condonation of delay as well as for stay of the proceedings before the learned Magistrate. Since in V.K. Jain's case (supra), this Court has held that the order issuing process is revisable, it would be appropriate to relegate the applicants to the revisional remedy before the Sessions Court and in the mean time protect the applicants by staying the proceedings before the learned Magistrate and by condoning the delay in filing revision application provided the applicants file revision application within a reasonable time. 4 I am unable to accept the submissions of Mr. Wachasunder that the remedy by way of application under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the appropriate remedy available to the applicants. In view of the above, the application is dismissed. Liberty to the applicants to file revision application before the appropriate Sessions Court against the impugned order dated 20.2.2007 passed by learned Magistrate within a period of eight weeks. In case the revision is filed before the Sessions Court within eight weeks, the Sessions Court shall condone the delay in filing revision application. For a period of eight weeks further proceedings before the learned Magistrate are stayed. Needless to mention that this Court has not given any finding on merits of the matter and in case the applicants choose to file revision application, the same shall be decided in accordance with law. The application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. JUDGE Ambulkar