V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner-original accused and the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 i. e. original complainant. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 22-11-04 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur in Criminal Case No. 258/04. By the said order the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued process against the petitioner under sections 166 and 167 of Indian Penal Code.

( 3 ) AS in my opinion the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy i. e. of preferring a revision before the Sessions Court against the said order, I was not inclined to entertain the present petition specially in view of the observations of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of (Thansingh Nathmal and others v. Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri and others), reported in A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 1419, wherein it is observed that when there is a alternative efficacious remedy a writ petition ought not to be entertained.

( 4 ) AFTER expressing this opinion the learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out recent decision of Supreme Court in the case of (