1 cri.wp no. 1145 of 2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1145 OF 2010 Ms. Krishna Singh ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Ms. Krishna Singh, petitioner in person. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for State. Mrs. Anjali Purav for respondent no. 4. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : FEBRUARY 23, 2011 P.C. 1. This writ petition filed by the petitioner who is appearing in person challenges the order dated 18th January, 2010 passed by the Sessions Court of Greater Bombay on Criminal Revision Application No. 1164 of 2008 filed by her challenging the order of issuance of process by the Magistrate in the complaint filed by respondent no. 4 for the offence punishable under section 500 of I.P.C. A copy of the complaint is annexed at Exh. T to the petition. Respondent no. 4 is a lawyer who was representing the petitioner in Industrial Court, Mumbai. It appears that the petitioner was dissatisfied with the 2 cri.wp no. 1145 of 2010 services rendered by respondent no. 4 as an advocate. Therefore, she had on 27th July, 2006 addressed a letter to respondent no. 4 making various allegations therein including allegation of indulging in professional misconduct as also joining hands with the opposite party. The footnote to the letter shows that carbon copies thereof had been sent to : (1) The President of Industrial Court” “ (2) The President and General Secretary of Maharashtra and Goa “ Bar Council.” (3) The Hon’ble justice of Consumer Court”. “ 2. Considering the nature of the imputations made in the letter and the fact that letter indicated that copies thereof had been sent to the above persons, the learned Magistrate passed the order of issuance of process against the petitioner. Therefore, there can be no infirmity whatsoever in the order. The petitioner, however, claims that though letter sent to respondent no. 4 mentions that it's carbon copies are sent to the above persons, in fact no copies have been sent to any of them. This being the defence, will have to be taken into consideration at the time of the trial. 3. There is one more complaint made by the petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge did not give proper hearing to her at the 3 cri.wp no. 1145 of 2010 time of deciding the criminal revision application. The impugned order shows that the petitioner was represented by advocate Mr. S.B. Rajbhar before the Sessions Court. The petitioner however states that Mr. Rajbhar had appeared only on the first date. On the next date when the submissions had been advanced on behalf of respondent no. 4, the petitioner's advocate was not present. The petitioner desired to make submissions in person and was not permitted by the Court to do so. Instead going into the veracity of the claim made, I have given extensive hearing to the petitioner to justify her challenge to the order of issuance of process. Since the order of issuance of process is correct and valid, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. The petitioner claims that she has filed an application for discharge before the learned Magistrate. At her request, it is directed that the learned Magistrate shall consider her application on its merit and in accordance with the law without being influenced by the order either of this court or the Sessions Court. [Judge]