Surya Kant, J. - (1.) IN this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Petitioner is primarily aggrieved at the order dated 27th October, 2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur whereby his revision petition against the order of summoning, has been dismissed.
(2.) ON 13th November, 2006, when this petition came up for preliminary hearing it was contended on behalf of the Petitioners that the revision petition has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge solely on the ground that the summoning order is an interlocutory order against which no revision is maintainable. On the other hand, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 contends that the learned Sessions Judge has decided the revision petition on merits as well and has dismissed the same after finding no substance therein.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 27th October, 2006. On a plain reading of the impugned order, it is apparent that the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the summoning order is an "inter -locutory order" and in the light of the Apex Court judgment in K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala and Anr.,, 1992 (1) RCR, 232 and some other judgments, it was held that "the revision petition on the face of it is not maintainable". It is thereafter that the learned Sessions Judge has made certain observations on merits as well and has held that in the light of the documentary evidence on record a prima facie case for summoning of the Petitioners was made out.;