1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.549 OF 2005 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.550 OF 2005 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.551 OF 2005 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.552 OF 2005 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.555 OF 2005 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.556 OF 2005 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.557 OF 2005 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.558 OF 2005 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.559 OF 2005 Gurjeet Kaur Arora. ..Petitioner. V/s. Atul Brijkumar Khanna & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr.Kafil Khan & Ms.Savita Mundra for petitioner. Mr.U.V.Nikam, APP for State in W.P.No.549/05,550/05, 551/05, 552/05. Ms.G.P.Mulekar, APP for State in W.P. No.555/05, 556/05, 557/05, 558/05 & 559/05. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : DECEMBER 9, 2005. DATE : DECEMBER 9, 2005. DATE : DECEMBER 9, 2005. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard. The grounds raised before this Court can be effectively answered by the Revisional Court. 2. As alternative efficacious remedy is 2 available to the petitioner by way of revision before the Sessions Court in view of the decision of this Court in the case of V.K.Jain & Ors. vs. Pratap V.K.Jain & Ors. vs. Pratap V.K.Jain & Ors. vs. Pratap V.Padode reported in 2005(3) Mh.L.J. 778, V.Padode reported in 2005(3) Mh.L.J. 778, V.Padode reported in 2005(3) Mh.L.J. 778, no interference is warranted. 3. These petitions are disposed of with liberty to take recourse to remedy of revision, if so advised. All questions are left open. 4. The petitioner to file such Revision Application within four weeks from today. Till such time, no precipitative action be taken against the petitioner. Revision Application, if filed within four weeks from today, be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. 5. In case, there is delay in filing Revision Application, Court will take into account the fact that the petitioner had first approached this Court, which period may be excused in computing delay. 6. Petitions disposed of on the above terms.