((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2210 OF 2008 Kantilal Popatlal Sangoi Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & anr. Respondents Sudeep Pasbola for petitioner. Sanjeev P. Kadam for respondent no.2. Miss S.V.Gajre, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 28th April 2009 PC : 1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 18th September 2008 passed by the Sessions Court. By the said order passed on the revision application preferred by the second respondent (original complainant), the learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the order dated 2nd February 2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on the complaint filed by the second respondent. By the said order the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to consider the complaint and to pass necessary order in accordance with law in ((-2-)) the light of the observations made by him in the judgement. By order dated 2nd February 2008, learned Metropolitan Magistrate had rejected the prayer made by the second respondent for passing an order under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and had directed that an enquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the said Code" for short) will be conducted. The revision application was preferred for challenging the said order dated 2nd February 2008 passed by the learned Magistrate. 2. The effect of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that the learned Magistrate will have to consider the complaint filed by the second respondent afresh and will have to pass appropriate order thereon in accordance with law. The result of the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court is that even an order passed under section 202 of the said Code on 2nd February 2008 stands set aside. 3. Therefore, as of today, there is no order passed on the complaint. Thus, as of today, no order which is adverse to the petitioner has ((-3-)) been passed by the learned Magistrate and the complaint is still pending. 4. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that by the impugned judgement and order dated 18th September 2008 passed by the Sessions court, the rights of the petitioner have been affected. On this ground this writ petition need not be entertained. As of today it cannot be assumed that the learned Magistrate will pass an order against the petitioner. If on the basis of the impugned order dated 18th September 2008 the learned Magistrate passes an order which is adverse to the petitioner, he can always file appropriate proceedings in this Court for challenging the said order which may be passed by the Magistrate, and in such proceedings it will be always open for the petitioner to challenge the impugned judgement and order dated 18th September 2008 on the grounds which are urged in this petition. 5. Subject to what is observed above, the writ petition is not entertained and the same is disposed of. All contentions of the parties are kept open. ((-4-)) (A.S.OKA, J.)