-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1212 OF 2005 Shri.Vijay Chandrakanth Koli and Or. ...Applicants Vs. Smt.Meena Hira Koli ...Respondents ... Mr.S.A.Sawnat Advocate for Applicants Ms.S.V.Gajare A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : OCTOBER 24, 2005 DATE : OCTOBER 24, 2005 DATE : OCTOBER 24, 2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicants and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking quashing of process issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C.C.B.D. Belapur, Navi Mumbai in Case No.834 of 2004. In the said case process was issued against the applicants under Section 420 r.w. 34 of IPC. 3. For the reasons recorded in the decision of this Court in the case of V.K.Jain and others Vs. V.K.Jain and others Vs. V.K.Jain and others Vs. Pratap V. Padode reported in 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, Pratap V. Padode reported in 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, Pratap V. Padode reported in 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, I -2- am of the opinion that the applicants have an efficacious remedy of preferring revision against the order of Magistrate issuing process. Hence, in my view, it would be appropriate that the applicants prefer a revision before the concerned Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate issuing process. 4. Liberty is granted to the applicants to prefer the necessary revision before the concerned Sessions Court. The learned advocate for the applicant makes a statement that the necessary revision will be preferred within five weeks from today. In view of this statement, the trial Court shall not proceed with the trial for a period of five weeks from today. 5. On the necessary revision being preferred by the applicants before the concerned Sessions Court, the concerned Sessions Court shall dispose of the matter on merits after hearing the necessary parties. 6. Criminal Application is disposed of. -3- [V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]