(-1-) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NOS. 264 TO 266 OF 2005 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NOS. 264 TO 266 OF 2005 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NOS. 264 TO 266 OF 2005 Ranjit T. Choudhary ...Petitioner Versus Mrs. Namrata Yuvraj Oza & Anr ...Respondents ALONGWITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NOS. 267 TO 274 OF 2005 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NOS. 267 TO 274 OF 2005 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NOS. 267 TO 274 OF 2005 Ranjit T. Choudhary ...Petitioner Versus Govind Artani and Anr ...Respondents ALONGWITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 276 OF 2005 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 276 OF 2005 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 276 OF 2005 Ranjit T. Choudhary ...Petitioner Versus Santosh R. Dhole and Anr ...Respondents ..... Shri. S.V. Marwadi i/b Sunita R. Sharma, counsel for the Petitioner Ms. S.V. Gajare, APP for State in WP 264 & 273/05 Mr. R.M. Gadhavi, APP for State in WP 265 & 274/05 Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for State in WP 266 & 276/05 Mr. Rajesh More, APP for State in WP 267/05 Mr. V.B. Konde Deshmukh APP for State in WP 268/05 (-2-) Mr. Y.S. Shinde, APP for State in WP 269/05 Mr. U.V. Nikam, APP for State in WP 270/05 Mr. M.H. Mhatre, APP for State in WP 271/05 Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for State in WP 272/05 ..... CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATED: 12TH DECEMBER, 2005 DATED: 12TH DECEMBER, 2005 DATED: 12TH DECEMBER, 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 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. Padode V.K. Jain & Ors. Vs. Pratap V. Padode V.K. Jain & Ors. Vs. Pratap V. Padode reported in 2005(3) Mh. L.J. 778, reported in 2005(3) Mh. L.J. 778, reported in 2005(3) Mh. L.J. 778, no interference is warranted. 3. This Petition is 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 (-3-) today, be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. 5. In case, there is any 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 are disposed of on the above terms. *****