1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Revision Application No.156/2007 Sharad Dajiraoji Gawahane Vs. Sudarshan Kishorji Satpute and another ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE, J. DATED : 29th April, 2008. Heard Mr. Dhabe, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. R.T. Anthony, learned counsel for respondent no.1. By this application, the applicant who is the original complainant, in Complaint Case No. 248/2006 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court NO.2) Nagpur challenges the judgment and order dated 23rd March, 2007 passed by the Adhoc Sessions Judge 10th Nagpur in Criminal Revision Application No.68/2007 by which the Revisional Court has set aside the order dated 23/03/2007 issuing process against respondent no.1 punishable under Sections 405 and 425 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Dhabe, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the revision filed by respondent no.1 before the Revisional Court was not maintainable since the order 2 issuing process is an interlocutory order and only remedy available to respondent no.1 was to file an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code” for short) as has been held in Adalat Prasad Vs. Roopalal Jindal and others (2004(4) Mh.L.J. 274). He further submitted that the finding of the Revisional Court that no offence is made out against respondent no.1 is totally perverse inasmuch the applicant has been able to make out offences punishable under Sections 405 and 425 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent no.1. Per contra, Mr. Anthony, learned counsel for respondent no.1 supported the impugned judgment and order. Insofar as maintainability of the revision application is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that the same was maintainable since the Apex court in the case of Rajendrakumar Sitaram Pande and others Vs. Uttam and another (1999 (2) Mh. L. J. (SC)118) held that the order issuing process is revisable. The learned Single Judge of this Court in V.K. Jain Vs. Pratap V. Padode (2005(3) Mh.L.J. 778) has considered the judgment in Adalat Prasad's case (supra) and has held that against an order issuing process, remedy by way of revision is available. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by learned 3 Single Judge in V.K. Jain's case. Therefore, I find no substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant that the revision application before the lower trial Court was not maintainable. Insofar merits of the case are concerned, I find no perversity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. Once the sale deed was executed, the question of placing reliance upon earlier agreement did not arise. The finding recorded in this regard by the Revisional Court is a correct finding. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present Criminal Revision Application. Hence, the Criminal Revisional Application is dismissed. JUDGE Ambulkar