[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. NO.122 OF 2007 Mr.Parasmal Talesara Jain ..Applicant Vs. Shri.Buddhadev Mitra & Anr. ...Respondents ... Ms.Anjana Gupta i/b Mr.V.S.Talkute Advocate for Applicant Mr.V.B.Joshi Adv. for Respondent no.1 Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh 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 6, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 6, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 6, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant, the learned advocate for respondent no.1-original complainant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking quashing of process issued against him by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai. The process was issued under Sections 135(1)(a)(b) (ii) and 120-B of IPC in Case No.26/CW/06. 3. For the reasons recorded in the order passed by [-2-] this Court in the case of V.K.Jain Vs. P.V.Padode; V.K.Jain Vs. P.V.Padode; V.K.Jain Vs. P.V.Padode; 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court I am of the opinion that the applicant has an efficacious remedy of preferring revision against the order of Magistrate issuing process. Hence, in my view, it would be appropriate that the applicant prefers a revision before the concerned Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate issuing process. 4. Liberty is granted to the applicant 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 four weeks from today. In view of this statement, the trial Court shall not proceed with the trial for a period of four weeks. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1-original complainant makes a statement that no objection will be raised in respect of condonation of delay in preferring revision before the Sessions Court. In view of this statement, the learned Judge shall condone the delay, if any. 5. On the necessary revision being preferred by [-3-] the applicant before the concerned Sessions Court, the concerned Sessions Court shall dispose of the matter on merits after hearing the necessary parties. It is also open to the applicant to prefer an application for discharge before the trial Court. 6. Application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]