PRADIP Vs. KRUSHNRAO JAGANNATH PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned respective Counsel for the parties.

(2.) Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.

(3.) The petitioner is the accused in Regular Criminal Case No. 168/2010, filed by the respondent no.1 herein i.e. the original complainant. The learned Magistrate, on the complaint of the respondent no.1 herein, issued process requiring the petitioner and other accused to appear and answer to the charge of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the order issuing process, the petitioner filed an application for revision before the Court of Sessions. It is not in dispute that, the revision application is pending in the Sessions Court at Jalgaon. Since the challenge in the revision application is to the order issuing process, the petitioner applied for stay of the proceedings before the Magistrte, pending the hearing and final disposal of the revision application. This application was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jalgaon, by his order dated 11-10-2013.