KANT TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicant Kamal-ud-din @ Babu and the learned AGA and perused the impugned judgment.
(2.) WITH the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, this petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. It appears that the police submitted a final report in the case crime no. 9 of 2004 under sections 406, 409, 411 IPC, police station Risiya, district Bahraich. The Ist Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ J.M., Bahraich treated the final report as complaint and proceeded with the same and ultimately passed the summoning order dated 11.7.2006, against which the applicant preferred criminal revision no. 541 of 2006, which was dismissed on 20.2.2009 by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bahraich on the ground that the revision was not maintainable in view of the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of (1) Poonam Chand Jain vs. Fazaroo 2005 (1) LP 58(S.C.), (2) Subrahmaniyam Sethuraman vs. State of Maharashtra & others 2004 (6) SCC page 662, and (3) Adalat Prasad vs. Roop Lal Jindal & others 2004 (7) SCC page 338 (Three Judge Bench), and held that the only remedy, which could be available to the applicant, was to file a petition under section 482 CrPC. The aforesaid cases relied on by the learned Additional Sessions Judge have not dealt with the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge to hear a revision against the summoning order.
(3.) THE question whether or not the summoning order is an interlocutory order within the meaning of section 397 (2) CrPC was neither raised nor decided in the aforesaid cases. Therefore, the learned Special Judge can not be said to be justified in dismissing the revision as not maintainable.;