IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. APPLICATION NOS.1174/06, 1175/06, 1176/06, 1177/06, 1178/06, 1179/06, 1180/06, 1181/06, 1182/06, & 1183/06 (Rajkanwar Singh Sokhi Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.) ------------------------------------:---------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders. coram, appearances, Court’s orders : or directions and Registrar’s : orders. : ------------------------------------:----------------------------------- Mr.Subhash Jha i/b M/s.Law Global for the applicants in all the matters. Mrs.M.H.Mhatre A.P.P. for the State in CA Nos.1174/06, 1175/06, 1176/06. Mr.R.Y.Mirza A.P.P. for the State in CA Nos.1177/06, 1178/06, 1179/06, 1180/06. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh A.P.P. for the State in CA Nos.1181/06, 1182/06. Mr.U.V.Nikam A.P.P. for the State in C.A.No.1183/06. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED: 29TH JUNE, 2006 DATED: 29TH JUNE, 2006 DATED: 29TH JUNE, 2006. P.C.: . Criminal Application No.1174/06 is on board. The other applications were mentioned since they were not on board. All these matters arise from similar orders and even the prayers are identical. The parties also in all the applications are same. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.P.P. for the State. 3. In this group of applications, the applicants have prayed for quashing of criminal complaints pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate’s 23rd Court at Esplanade, Mumbai. The complaints in all the applications are filed under section 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in which the process has been issued. The applicants have approached this court directly without exhausting an efficacious remedy of revision available under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court in V.K.Jain and Others Vs. Pratap V. V.K.Jain and Others Vs. Pratap V. V.K.Jain and Others Vs. Pratap V. Padode and Anr. 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778 Padode and Anr. 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778 Padode and Anr. 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778 while dealing with similar application considered several judgments of the Apex Court and has held that the order of issue of process is not an interlocutory order and hence the revision against such order is maintainable. In the circumstances, these applications are disposed of with liberty to the applicants to file revision before the appropriate Court against the order impugned in the instant applications. If such revision is filed same may be considered in accordance with law. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)