1 Cri. W.P.1064/10 Mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1064 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.259 OF 2010 Raju S. Adnani & Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Dilip Lal Aswani & Anr. ....Respondents Mr. S.M.Oak, with Mr. Sagar Joshi for the petitioner. Mr. Y.M. Pendse, i/b. Vaibhav Karnik, for respondent No.1. Mrs. S.D.Shinde, APP for State. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED : 11TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. Heard. Admittedly in the private complaint filed by respondent No.1, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class has issued process against petitioner No.1 and 3 to 6. Mr. Oak has placed before us a copy of the decision in the case of Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande and others vs. Uttam and Another, AIR 1999 S.C. 1028. 2. It is clear that the order of issuance of process can be challenged by filing a Criminal Revision Application under Section 2 Cri. W.P.1064/10 397 of Cr.P.C., and when such a statutory remedy is available to the petitioners we do not see any reason to entertain a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of the complaint. 3. Hence the petition is disposed with liberty to the petitioners to file Criminal Revision Application. 4. In view of the disposal of the Criminal Writ Petition, Criminal Application does not survive and disposed as such. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)