IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION ( MAIN ) NO. 150 OF 2008 SMT. RUCMINI RAGHUNATH NARVEKAR AND 8 ORS., ... Applicants Versus SHRI. RANJIT SATARDEKAR AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. V. R. Tamba, Advocate for the Applicants. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 16th June, 2008 ORAL ORDER: Heard Shri Tamba, the learned Counsel on behalf of the applicants against whom process has been issued under Section 500 IPC in CC No. 185/2003/B. 2. Learned Counsel on behalf of the applicants has tried to persuade me that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly in the light of what is stated by the Apex Court in guide line no. 6 in the Case of STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S. BHAJANLAL AND OTHERS (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335). 3. Earlier, process was issued against these applicants by order dated 30/04/2005 in CC No. 63/2003/C and the applicants had approached this Court with a view to quash the same in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 245/2005 and this Court by order dated 6/12/2005 had given liberty to the applicants to approach the Court of Sessions. In fact the petition filed before this Court was returned to the applicants with liberty to them to present the same before the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge was directed to dispose of the same expeditiously. 4. The contention of the learned Advocate Shri Tamba is that on the same set of facts, which were stated in CC No. 63/2003/C, process has come to be issued again under the same Section of IPC in CC No. 185/2003/B, by another Magistrate and this is nothing but an abuse of process and such abuse is required to be quashed by this Court. 5. The applicants are challenging the order dated 15/02/2008 issuing process against them in CC No. 185/2003/B under Section 500 IPC contending that they cannot be prosecuted twice on the same set of facts. This matter can be conveniently examined by the Court of Sessions in revisional jurisdiction, as ordered by this Court by order dated 6/12/2005. In the case of Dr. MOHAN N. BHAWE V/S M/S. TRAVEL FORCE & ANR. (Criminal Misc. Application No. 52/2005), this Court by order dated 6/04/2005, has stated that: "In the case of ZANDU PHARMACEUTICALS WORKS LTD. V/S. MOHD. SHARAFLAL HAQUE AND ANOTHER [(2005) 1 S.C.C., 122] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again reiterated the principle that the exercise of power under S. 482 is an exception and not a rule and that is to be exercised ex debito justitia to do real and substantial justice for which the Court alone exists. In my view, since the applicant has a remedy of revision available under S. 397 of the Code, this Court need not exercise its jurisdiction either under S. 482 of the Code or under Article 227 of the Constitution. Again the revisional jurisdiction has been conferred concurrently on two courts namely the Court of Sessions as well as this Court. As held by me in the case of JEETENDRA R. DESHPRABHU V/S. LAXMIKANT YESHWANT PARSHEKAR AND OTHERS (CRIMINAL REVISION APPLCIATION NO. 28/2004) decided on 23.12.04 after considering several decisions of this Court, it is the choice of the superior court whether a revision petition should be entertained by it or not by allowing a party to by-pass the inferior court. I had also observed that it is unwritten law settled by the propriety, practice and prudence that a party ordinarily should approach the Court of Sessions first, in revisional jurisdiction." 6. In the light of order dated 6/12/2005, the applicants are at liberty to approach the Court of Sessions and the present petition/application shall be returned to the applicants and they will be at liberty to present the same before the Court of Sessions and in case the petition is presented within a period of 15 days, after the same is returned to the applicants, then the learned Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of the same expeditiously and in accordance with law. The learned Sessions Judge will ensure that the revision petition shall be disposed of by the same Court where Criminal Revision Application No. 121/2005 is pending. In the light of above, I find that this is not a fit case to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. The proceedings in CC No. 185/2003/B are hereby stayed for the period of 15 days. Further orders may be obtained from the learned Sessions Judge on the merits of the case. Expedite authenticated copy. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH