:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2250 OF 2008 Ashok Baburao Jadhav ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr. ..Respondents Mr. S.S. Butala for petitioner. Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP for State. CORAM: SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J. Date : November 17, 2008. Date : November 17, 2008. Date : November 17, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of process issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane by order dated 14/1/2008 in Summary Case No. 247 of 2008. In the said case process has been issued against the petitioner under Sections 21(18) 177 of Motor Vehicles Act. :2: 3. After process came to be issued against the petitioner, he preferred an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane for recall of process, in which various grounds have been raised by the petitioner. The said application came to be rejected by the learned Magistrate on 2/6/2008. It is well settled that the Magistrate does not have the power to recall process. The same has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal and ors. [(2004) 7 SCC 338] [(2004) 7 SCC 338] [(2004) 7 SCC 338]. Hence, no fault can be found with the learned Magistrate for rejecting the application for recall of process preferred by the petitioner. 4. For the reasons recorded in the order passed by this Court in the case of 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 petitioner has an efficacious remedy of preferring revision application against the order of Magistrate issuing process. Hence, in my view, it would be appropriate that the petitioner prefers a revision before the concerned Sessions Court against the order :3: of the Magistrate issuing process. 5. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to prefer the necessary revision before the concerned Sessions Court. The learned Advocate for the petitioner makes a statement that the necessary revision will be preferred within four weeks from today. In view of this statement, the trial court shall not proceed with the trial for a period of four weeks. 6. If the revision is preferred within four weeks, delay, if any, in preferring the revision be condoned. On the necessary revision being preferred by the petitioner before the concerned Sessions Court, the concerned Sessions Court shall dispose of the matter on merits after hearing the necessary parties. 7. Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Smt.V.K. Tahilramani,J.) (Smt.V.K. Tahilramani,J.) (Smt.V.K. Tahilramani,J.)