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. 123 OF 2008 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 123 OF 2008 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 123 OF 2008 Kavendra s/o Ramrao Patil.... Petitioner versus M/s. Bostik India Pvt. Ltd & anr.... Respondent. Mr. Pravin S.Patil for the petitioner Mr. S.R.Shinde APP for State. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 6TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED; 6TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED; 6TH FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. On a complaint filed by the respondent under section 138 of N.I.Act, process has been issued against the present petitioner. Instead of filing a revision in the Sessions Court, straight way writ petition has been filed. As there exists an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of a revision before the Sessions Court, I decline to entertain the present writ petition. The learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1998)5 S.C.C. page 749. (1998)5 S.C.C. page 749. (1998)5 S.C.C. page 749. It is a settled law that there is no bar in entertaining the petition, despite availability of alternative remedy. However when there exists an alternative efficacious remedy,ordinarily the parties need to be relegated to such remedy. In the result, writ petition is dismissed. ....