- (1.) N. B. Asthana, J. This revision has been directed against the summon ing order passed by IV Addl. C. J. M. , Shahjahanpur in Crime No. 272 of 1988 under Sections 147, 307, 504 and 506, IPC, P. S. Seramau North, Shahjahanpur. A preliminary objection was raised as to whether a revision against the summoning order is maintainable.
(2.) IN Kailash Chaudhari v. State of U. P. , 1994 Ail LJ 174 : 1994 JIC 422 it was held that an order issuing process on exparte consideration of the complaint and the material under Section 204 of the Code being only a step towards trial is an interlocutory order against which no revision lies. It was, however, argued on behalf of the revisionist that in view of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Amar Nath's case, AIR 1977 SC 2185 and Madhu Limaye v. Sate of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 the order in question is not an interlocutory order, la Amar Nath's case the summoning order was not taken as an interlocutory order in the facts and cir cumstances of the case. The Magistrate in that case although required to hold fresh enquiry issued process straightway without complying with the order of remand, and in such circumstances it was held not to be an interlocutory order. In Madhu Limaye's case it was held that an order rejecting the appli cation or plea of the accused which if accepted would have concluded the proceedings e. g. as to the jurisdiction of the court would not be interlocutory even though it may not be categorised as final order because the effect of the Rejection is continuation of the proceedings. This is not the case here. If the accused appears before the trial court in obedience to the summons issued to him it would be open to him to plead before the Magistrate that the process against him should not have been issued and the Magistrate may drop the proceedings if he is satisfied on re-consideration of the matter that there is no offence for which the accused could be tried. The power of the Magistrate to drop the proceedings against the accused is vested in him by virtue of Section 204 of the Code as has been held by the Supreme Court in K. M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, 1992 JIC 212 (SC) : 1992 SC Cr R 466. In State of Rajasthan v. Aruna Devi, JT 1994 (7) SC 522 also it was held that it is open to the accused on the matter being taken up by the Magistrate to urge that no case against him has been made out whereupon such order shall be passed by the Magistrate as deemed legal and just. In both the above rulings the order of the High Court, quashing the summoning order were set aside. In view of the above it is clear that the order summoning the accused ib an interlocutory order against which no revision lies.
(3.) THE revision is misconceived and is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;