[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2033 OF 2007 IN C.C.NO.220/SS/2004 Mr.Pradeep M.Vakil ..Petitioner [Ori.Accused No.2] Vs. M/s.Indusind Media and Communications Ltd. & Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.Santosh Kudiguppi Advocate for Petitioner Smt.Vandana D.Jaisingh Advocate for Respondent No.1-original complainant Ms.A.T.Jhaveri 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 : JANUARY 21, 2008 DATE : JANUARY 21, 2008 DATE : JANUARY 21, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner, the learned advocate for the respondent-original complainant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of process issued by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in C.C.No.220/SS/2004. In the said case process is issued under Section 138 of Negotiable [-2-] Instruments Act. 3. However, for the reasons recorded in the order passed by this Court in the case of V.K.Jain Vs. V.K.Jain Vs. V.K.Jain Vs. P.V.Padode; 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, P.V.Padode; 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, P.V.Padode; 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of preferring revision against the order of Magistrate issuing process. Hence, in my view, it would be appropriate that the petitioner prefers a revision before the concerned Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate issuing process. 4. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to prefer the necessary revision before the concerned Sessions Court. The learned advocate for the petitioner 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. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent-original complainant fairly states that if the revision is preferred within five weeks from today, no objection will be raised in respect of [-3-] delay in filing the revision. However, if the revision is filed thereafter, the objection relating to the delay, would be raised. 5. On the necessary revision being preferred by the petitioner before the concerned Sessions Court, the concerned Sessions Court shall dispose of the matter on merits after hearing the necessary parties. 6. Writ Petition is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]