( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 67 OF 2010 Sou. Pramila w/o. Ramrao Nagargoje and ors. .. Petitioners Versus Shaikh Gulab Shaikh Noor and ors. .. Respondents Shri R.K. Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioners. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 29.01.2010 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri R.K. Jadhavar for the petitioners. By this petition the order dated 12.06.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, in S.C.C. No. 3399 of 2008 issuing process against present petitioners under section 500, 506 both read with section 34 of the I.P.C., is challenged. 2. It is case of respondent No.1 – Shaikh Gulab that he has issued notice to the petitioners and respondent No.2 through Adv. Shri Baheti. Said notice dated 21.11.2007 was ( 2 ) replied by respondent No.2 on behalf of M/s. Multiple Pvt. Ltd., in his capacity as Managing Director and in reply he had threatened to file separate criminal complaints against respondent No.1. It is also stated in the reply to notice that respondent No.1 was a mad person; he is a criminal and involved in murder of Judge - Shri A.N. Chavan. It is also stated that many people have complained to the Government and serious inquiry was going on. So, it is alleged that these are defamatory statements made by the Managing Director on behalf of the company. It is not disputed that the petitioners are directors. It is argued before this Court by Adv. Shri Jadhavar that petitioners have not authorised respondent No.2 to use such language or make such allegations against respondent No.1. So, they cannot be prosecuted and order of issuance of process may be struck down. 3. It may be noted that the order of issuance of process was passed on 12.06.2008 and the petition is filed on 18.01.2010. Reply was to the notice regarding handing over possession of shed. Even if there are some disputes, at this stage it cannot be said that reply letter is not issued on behalf of the company of which the petitioners are directors. ( 3 ) Prima facie they are liable. Of course, the petitioners have every right to lead evidence or demonstrate through cross- examination that they are not concerned with the reply or that they have not authorised imputation or defamatory allegations made in reply. 4. In-fact, this is not case where writ petition can be entertained in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. However, while parting with the petition, Adv. Shri Jadhavar requested that the Trial Court may be directed to expedite hearing of the matter in view of the fact that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are coming from a long distances and petitioner No.1 is a household woman. 5. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed in limine and the Trial Court is directed to consider the request of the petitioners for expeditious hearing. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/JAN10/crwp67.10