(-1-) 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 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2006 OF 2004 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2006 OF 2004 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2006 OF 2004 ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2007 OF 2004 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2007 OF 2004 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2007 OF 2004 ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2008 OF 2004 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2008 OF 2004 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2008 OF 2004 Gurujeetkaur Rajindersingh Arora ...Petitioner Versus Ashrumati Dahyabhai Shah & Anr ...Respondents ..... Mr. Kafil Khan i/b Mr.G.R.Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioner Ms. Mamta Shah, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. V.B. Konde Deshmukh, A.P.P. for State. ..... CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. DATED: 25TH JULY, 2005 DATED: 25TH JULY, 2005 DATED: 25TH JULY, 2005 P. C.:- P. C.:- P. C.:- 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of process issued against him in Criminal Case Nos.651/S/2002, 652/S/2002 and 653/S/2002 which are pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai. In the said cases, process has been issued against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. For the reasons recorded in my order dated 13th June, 2005 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.213 of 2005 and order dated 21st June, 2005 passed in (-2-) Criminal Application No.550 of 2005, the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of preferring revision against the order of Magistrate issuing process. Hence, in my opinion, it would be appropriate that the petitioner prefers revision before the concerned Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate issuing process. 4. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to prefer revision before the concerned Sessions Court. The learned advocate for the petitioner states that the necessary revision would be preferred within a period of three weeks from today. In view of this statement, the stay granted by this Court is extended for a period of three weeks from today. The learned advocate for the respondent i.e.original complainant fairly states that no objection would be raised in respect of delay in filing revision before the learned Sessions Judge. 5. On the necessary revision being preferred by the petitioner before the concerned Sessions Court, the concerned Sessions Court shall dispose of the same on merits after hearing necessary parties. 6. Writ Petitions are disposed of. *****