These ten applications under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code) are being dealt with by this common Order, though they have nothing in common as to the substantive law involved except that they all seek to knock the worn out doors of this Court without first exhausting the remedy of seeking revision before the Court of Sessions. These applications represent a spectrum of fact situations in which the applicants have approached this Court. Since there are several such applications invoking jurisdiction of this Court directly without first exhausting the remedy of seeking revision before the Court of Sessions, such applications were directed to be listed together to examine whether such a course is desirable. In V.K. Jain & others v. Pratap V. Padole & another, reported in 2005 (3) Mh.L.J. 778, Chetan R. Nagda & others v. N.D. Pawar & another, reported in 2006 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 267, and in Floyd D. Aguiar v. Bronwyn D. Aguiar & Anr., reported in 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1633, three learned Single Judges of this Court had held that, when remedy by way of revision was available, application under section 482 may not be entertained. However, since the