..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1829 OF 2008 M.G.Construction Company. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Manjeet Singh Anand, petitioner in-person. Mr.Nikas Kamble, Adv. for respondent Nos.3 to 15. Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 24th October, 2008. DATED : 24th October, 2008. DATED : 24th October, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the petitioner-orig.complainant, the learned Advocate for the respondents-orig.accused and the learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the respondents-orig.accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The said complaint is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai and it is numbered as C.C.No.1159/SS/2005. In the said case, process came to be issued against the accused persons under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Being ..(2).. aggrieved thereby, the accused persons approached this Court and preferred Criminal Application Nos.3500 of 2005, 3501 of 2005 and 3502 of 2005. The said three applications came to be disposed of by me by order dated 2nd September, 2005. By the said order, the accused were granted liberty to prefer revisions before the Sessions Court challenging the order of the Magistrate issuing process. To enable the accused persons to prefer necessary revisions, the proceedings before the trial Court came to be stayed for a period of four weeks. 3. Thereafter Criminal Revision Application Nos.1075 of 2005, 1076 of 2005 and 1077 of 2005 came to be preferred by the accused persons before the Sessions Court. The grievance of the petitioner is that this Court in the order dated 2nd September, 2005 had granted stay for a limited period of four weeks. However, thereafter the stay was continued by the Sessions Court from time to time. However, by order dated 23rd March, 2007 the stay came to be vacated by the Sessions Court as the accused persons and their Advocates were not present before the Court. However, thereafter an application came to be preferred by the accused persons before the Sessions ..(3).. Court for continuing the stay and thereafter the stay came to be continued by the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 9th January, 2008 and the stay is in existence till today. 4. The said order of the learned Sessions Judge was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.503 of 2008 before this Court. The said Petition came to be disposed of by order dated 5th August, 2008 wherein it is observed that the learned Sessions Judge could not have revealed any finding on merits of the order issuing process which is stated in para-7 & 9 of the order of the learned Sessions Judge. In the order dated 5th August, 2008, it is specifically stated that there is no challenge in the said petition to any of the subsequent orders passed by the Sessions Judge and the said writ petition came to be disposed of. 5. The petitioner states that though the stay was granted by this Court only for a period of four weeks, thereafter the Sessions Judge by order dated 9th January, 2008 had continued the stay which is in existence till today. The petitioner has submitted that the Sessions Court has seriously erred in ..(4).. continuing the stay and hence the stay ought to be vacated. It is seen that this Court itself had granted liberty to the accused persons to prefer revisions before the Sessions Court and had granted stay of four weeks to the proceedings before the trial Court. The said stay was granted so as to enable the accused to prefer the revision applications before the Sessions Court. Once the revisions are filed obviously till such time that the learned Sessions Judge can deal with the said revisions, in the interest of justice, the learned Sessions Judge has extended the stay granted by this Court. 6. Looking to the fact that the revision applications are pending wherein prayer is for quashing of process, obviously, it would not be in the interest of justice that the trial proceeds. If the trial proceeds, the said revisions would become infructuous. Hence, no fault can be found with the learned Sessions Judge in extending the stay granted by this Court, from time to time till the said revisions are disposed of. It is made clear that the stay will extend till the disposal of the revisions. Looking to the fact that the complaints have been ..(5).. filed in the year, 2004 and the matter is pending for about four years, in the interest of justice, the said revisions to be disposed of expeditiously and as far as possible by 31st January, 2009. 7. Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. As far as any other prayers are concerned, it would be open to the petitioner to file separate proceedings. Liberty is granted to the petitioner in that regard. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)