A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

In both these Petitions, preliminary objection regarding maintainability of Writ Petitions has been raised on behalf of the private Respondents. According to the private Respondents, Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to question the validity of order issuing process, passed by the Criminal Court of some other State which is not subordinate to this Court, cannot be entertained by this Court. Besides, even though the Petitions instituted by the Petitioners are under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the grounds agitated therein are in the nature of invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court and since the trial Court which has issued process is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this Court should be loath in exercising writ jurisdiction.

2. The background in which both these Petitions have been instituted in this Court, in brief, are as follows:

The renumbered Respondent No.2 in the respective Petitions have filed complaints before the Court of the IIIrd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad and XVIIth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate being CC No.1178/2008 and CC No.1577/2008 respectively. The first complaint is filed by one Dwarkanath Boppanna s/o Late Shri Dr.B.V.Ranga Rao Garu Respondent No.2 in W.P.No.2456 of 2008). Whereas, the latter complaint has been filed by Mrs.Usha Boppannawife of above named Dwarkanath-(Respondent No.2 in W.P.No.2146 of 2008). According to the Petitioners, both these complaints have been filed on the same day as a counter blast to the original complaint filed by Petitioner No.2 in the Court at Mumbai against the above named Boppanna Dwarkanath and five others for offence under Section 409, 468, 471 r/w 34 and 120-B of I.P.C. Be that as it may, in the former complaint filed by said Dwarkanath, it is alleged that the Petitioners herein have committed offence of defamation by publication of malicious imputation of print by electronic message/mail dated 5th June 2007. The contents of the said mail read thus:

"The Bogmallo Beach Resort Goa (Bogmallo) owned by Trade Wings Hotels Ltd. (TWHL) was under the management of Mr. Ajit Kerkar, Chairman/Director of Tulip Hotel Pvt.Ltd. during the period 20002006. During his tenure as Director, Mr. Kerkar through his group company M/s. Tulip Star Leisure & Health Resorts has unauthorizedly sold Time Shares of Bogmollo, without knowledge of TWHL. Mr. Kerkar has also siphoned off the revenue generated from the said sale of Time Shares. Consequently, after having discovered the illegal acts of Mr. Kerkar, TWHL vide their Advocate's letter dated 27th January 2007 have terminated, effective 1st November 2006, all the understandings and arrangements with Mr. Kerkar and have also initiated criminal proceedings in the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates Esplanade Court, Mumbai being 14/M of 2007 where process has been issued against Mr. Kerkar and his co-conspirators under Sections 409, 468, 471, 120 B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for Trade Wings Hotels Ltd."

In the said complaint, it is prayed that cognizance of the case be taken against the Petitioners herein under Section 500 r/w Sections 499, 110, 34, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.P.C.') and to try the Petitioners in accordance with law. The said complaint has been filed on the assertion that the private Respondent (renumbered Respondent No.2) is one of the Directors of M/s.Tulip Stars Hotels Ltd., a public Limited Company. In that capacity, he was aggrieved by the malicious publication by the Petitioners referred to earlier. It is his case that on account of the alleged publication, the business prospects of the Company of which he is the Director was likely to be affected and it would lower the prestige and reputation of the said Company in the eyes of public. In the complaint, it is asserted that the alleged malicious publication was brought to his notice by one