IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NOS. 382 TO 390 OF 2008 M/s.Banyan Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.(W.P.382/08) Rajiv Bharat Shah (W.P.383/08) M/s.Joothwat & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (W.P.384/08) Reshma B. Shah & Ors. (W.P.385/08) Bharat S. Shah & Ors.(W.P.386/08) Beena Bharat Shah & Ors. (W.P.387/08) M/s.Vishal Rajeev Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (W.P.388/08) M/s.Reshma Rashesh Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.(W.P.389/08) M/s.Solo Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (W.P.390/08) ......Petitioners V/s M/s.Royal Palms (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.Virag Tulzapurkar, Sr. Adv. With Mr.I.A.Bagaria & Ms.Uma Bagaria, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr.Niteen Pradhana with Mr.M.K.Dubey, Adv. For R.No.1. Mrs.A.T.Jhaveri, APP for the State in W.P.Nos.382 & 383 of 2008. Mr.P.A.Pol, APP for the State in W.P.Nos.383 & 384 of 2008. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP for the State in W.P.Nos.385 & 386 of 2008. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP for the State in W.P.Nos.387 to 390 of 2008. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 26/2/08 PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of both the parties. Respondent No.1 filed a complaint against the present petitioners before the Metropolitan Magistrate for commission of offence punishable under sections 191, 192, 193 and 196 read with 1 section 34 of IPC. The trial Court passed an order and issued process against the present petitioners. The said order passed by the trial Court dated 13.12.07 was challenged by the petitioners by filing revision before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision and hence present petitions are filed taking exception to legality, validity and propriety of the order passed in revision by the Sessions Judge. The learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the impugned order does not go to consider any of the submission made on behalf of the petitioners/applicants in the revision. Written arguments were also filed by the parties and perusal thereof clearly reveal various grounds raised which required serious consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that it was canvassed before the revisional court that no private complaint is tenable for the offences under section 193 and 196 in view of the bar under section 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Both the learned counsel for respective parties concede that the impugned order cannot be permitted to hold the field as the same is not a reasoned order and fails to adjudicate the issues raised by the parties before it. Both the parties seem to place reliance on a judgment reported in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. V/s Meenakshi Marwah & Anr., 2005 (4) SCC 370. Both the learned counsel concede that the impugned order cannot be sustained and need to be quashed and set aside. As the revisional court has failed to consider the objection raised by the revisional applicants and in view of the concession made available by both the learned counsel 2 the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matters are remanded back to the revisional court for decision afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. Rule made absolute in above terms. 26.2.08 3