( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) THROUGH this application under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, the applicants are seeking quashing of process issued against them under section 406 of Indian Penal Code by order dated 24-8-2004. The said process has been issued against the applicants in complaint No. 498/sw/04 which is pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court Ballard estate, Mumbai.

( 3 ) HOWEVER, in my opinion, the applicants have an efficacious remedy i. e. of preferring a revision before the Sessions Court against the order of the magistrate issuing process. Hence, I expressed the view that it would be appropriate that the applicants prefers revision before the concerned Sessions court against the order of Magistrate issuing process.

( 4 ) ON expressing this opinion, the learned counsel for the applicants pointed out the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Adalat prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal and others, 2004 (4) Mh. LJ. 274. The learned advocate has submitted that in the said decision, it is observed in para 16 that in a case where process has been issued, in the absence of any review power or inherent power with the subordinate Criminal Courts, the remedy lies in invoking section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. Thus the learned advocate has submitted that in view of the observations of the Supreme Court, the applicants have approached the High Court for relief as both the lower Courts i. e. the magistrate or Sessions Court cannot grant the relief.

( 5 ) THE learned advocate has also placed reliance on another decision of the supreme Court in the case of Subramanium Sethuraman vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. , 2005 (1) Mh. LJ. 626. The learned advocate has submitted that in the said decision, the Supreme Court has held that in a case where the process is issued the only course available to the aggrieved party is to challenge the issuance of process by way of petition under section 482 of the Criminal procedure Code.

( 6 ) I have carefully perused the said decisions. In the case of Adalat Prasad, the question which came up for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the view of the Supreme Court in K. M. Mathew vs. State of Kerala and another, 1992 (1) SCC 217, wherein it was held that if the Magistrate had issued process, he could also recall such an order, was a correct view or not. Thus, the question which fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of adalat Prasad was whether a Magistrate could recall process. It was the only question which fell for consideration. It is to be noted that it was the only question argued, deliberated and decided by the Supreme Court. While deciding the case of Adalat Prasad, the Supreme Court was not considering the question whether a revision could be preferred against the order of Magistrate issuing process. In fact, in the case of Adalat Prasad, after the observations in para 16 stated above, in para 18, the Supreme Court has observed thus : "18 In view of our above conclusion, it is not necessary for us to go into the question whether order issuing a process amounts to an interim order or not. " thus, in the case of Adalat Prasad, the Supreme Court has not decided the issue whether a revision against such an order is maintainable or not as the said issue was not raised. In fact from the observations in para 18, it is clear that the supreme Court has not gone into the question whether an order issuing process is an interlocutory order or not and hence, whether a revision against such an order is maintainable or not.

( 7 ) AS far as the decision in the case of Subramaniam Sethuraman is concerned, the question which fell for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the decision in the case of Adalat Prasad would require reconsideration as in the case of Adalat Prasad the Court proceeded on the basis that the case was a summons case but in reality it was a warrant case covered by chapter