..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.613 OF 2008 Sitabai Dhondu Khanvilkar. ..Applicant. Versus Babaji Bhikaji Khanvilkar and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Madhukar Dalvi, Adv. for the applicant. Ms.A.A.Mane, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 19th December, 2008. DATED : 19th December, 2008. DATED : 19th December, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant filed a complaint under Sections 191, 192, 193, 463, 464, 465 against the respondent - orig.accused. The case is numbered as RCC No.25 of 2008 and it is pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Rajapur, Ratnagiri. In the said case, process came to be issued by the learned Magistrate against the respondent on 29.3.2008. However, order issuing process stated that process was issued under Sections 193 & 165 of Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved thereby the respondents preferred Criminal Revision Application No.23 of 2008 before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 27th ..(2).. August, 2008 allowed the said Revision and set-aside the order of the learned Magistrate issuing process against the respondents under Section 193 and 165 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The case of the applicant is that the complaint was not under Section 165 of Indian Penal Code and it was under Section 465 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, there was no question of issuing process under Section 165 of Indian Penal Code. It is stated that instead of 465 of IPC in the order it is wrongly mention as 165, hence the applicant preferred an application before the learned Magistrate for clarifying the order. The learned Magistrate by an order dated 7.10.2008 clarified that Section 165 ought to be read as Section 465 of IPC. 4. In view of the fact that now the Magistrate has clarified that process was issued under Section 465 of IPC the prayer of the applicant - orig.complainant is that the order of the learned Sessions Court setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate issuing process be set-aside. 5. It is seen that the learned Sessions Judge has ..(3).. proceeded on the ground that process was issued under Section 165 IPC hence he quashed the order of the learned Magistrate issuing process. However, the case of the complainant was not under Section 165 IPC at all. The learned Sessions Judge has proceeded on erroneous facts or grounds that process was issued under Section 165 IPC. In view of the fact that Section 165 has been replaced with section 465 of IPC by the learned Magistrate and the fact that 165 which appeared in the order was on account of typographical error, in the interest of justice, the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 27.8.2008 deserves to be set-aside and is accordingly set-aside. 6. It would be open to the respondent to prefer a fresh application challenging the order of the learned Magistrate issuing process under Section 193 and 465 of IPC or it is also open to the respondent to amend the Section in revision application No.23 of 2008 from 165 to 465 of Indian Penal Code and add grounds in support thereof. All contentions of both sides are left open. 7. Criminal Revision Application is disposed of accordingly. ..(4).. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)