1 appln4285-10 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4285 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4286 OF 2010 Mrs. Asha Amit Patel ..Applicant Vs. SICOM Ltd. and another ..Respondents Mr. Ashok Bhatiya a/w Dipali Chimane for the applicant Mr. Hemant Prabhulkar i/by Juris Consultus for Respondent No.1 Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. CORAM : N.D.DESHPANDE,J. DATED : 25 th March, 2011 P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Bhatia, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Prabhulkar for Respondent No.1 and Mr. More, APP for the Respondent-State. 2. These applications are filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 invoking inherent powers of this Court for quashing and setting aside the order of issuing process against the applicant passed the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 28 th Court, Esplanade Mumbai. 3. No doubt, the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 knew no bounds, however, the criminal justice believes in the discipline, referring to the subordinate Courts jurisdiction and working, under the High Court Court. The present criminal applications are made against the order of issuance of process in the two complaint cases registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the 2 appln4285-10 Company named SICOM Ltd. and its directors. The applicant being one of the directors had received summons and gave appearance. The process was issued in the year 2006 and now in 2010, it is challenged. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant objected to these applications and urged for their dismissal pointing out that there is regular remedy available to the applicant under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code by way of revision before the Sessions Court. Issue involved is small as to propriety of continuity of the proceedings under section 138 of the N.I. Act against the accused director of the Company where no specific role is attributed, for further continuation of the prosecution. 4. In the light of the above submissions, after hearing both the side and from the record of the I am of the opinion that such criminal applications at this stage cannot be entertained. However, on request of the learned counsel for the applicant he is allowed to withdraw the applications with liberty to adopt appropriate remedy before the revisional Court within one month from today with application for condonation of delay which shall be considered and decided by the revisional Court in accordance with law, on its own merits. However the period covered pending these criminal applications is excluded. 5. The applications are accordingly disposed of. (N.D.DESHPANDE,J.)