1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner is a original complainant and has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of The Constitution of India, questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon in Criminal Revision Appl.No.54/2010, dated 21/03/2011 allowing the criminal revision and setting aside the order of issuance of process passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Rahata in STC No. 460/2010 vide order dated 03/08/2010.

3. Heard respective counsels for the parties.

4. The facts which gave rise to file the criminal writ petition can be summarized as: The complainant herein has filed a report before J.M.F.C. Rahata on 02/08/2010 against the respondent no.2 complaining that the respondent no.2 is the son of his sister Philominabai Joseph. The said Philominabai has one more sister by name Monikabai Shivraj. This Monikabai owned agricultural property in Survey No.320 admeasuring about 83R. It is alleged that the Monikabai had sold the said property to the applicant for consideration of Rs.2,00,000/Mother of the respondent no.2 is attesting witness to the said document of sale. Said Monikabai expired on 29/09/2009, while Philominabai expired on 28/05/2000. It is alleged that out of the land purchased by the applicant, 64R land was converted for nonagriculture purpose. Thereafter, he had given one advertisement for sale of the N.A. plots created in that property. At that time, respondent no.2 has published one advertisement in the newspaper “Daily Sarvamat” dated 30/07/2010 and also moved one application before the Village Kamgar Talathi dated 29/07/2010. It is alleged that due to acts of respondent no.2, the applicant herein had sustained financial loss and hence he lodged a report complaining that the respondent no.2 has committed an offence punishable u/s. 463, 465 of The IPC. It appears that after recording verification on 03/08/2010, process was issued for the offence punishable u/s. 465 of The IPC. Then the case was numbered as STC No.460/2010.

5. It appears that, after the summons was issued on respondent no.2 herein, he had preferred criminal revision application no. 54/2010 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon. After hearing both the sides, by judgment and order dated 21/03/2011, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon had allowed the revision application and quashed and set aside the order of issuance of process dated 03/08/2011, which is impugned in the present criminal writ petition.

6. In this background, I have heard learned counsel for revision applicant followed by the submissions of learned counsel for respondent no.2 and of learned A.P.P. for State.

7. The first phase of submissions is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon has committed an error in entertaining the criminal revision application filed by the respondent no.2 herein as the order of issuance of process is an interlocutory order and criminal revision application u/s 397(2) of The Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

8. At this juncture, it is useful to advert to the observations of the Apex Court in the matter of RajendraKumar Sitaram versus Uttam 19993 SCC 134 = AIR 1999 SC page 1028, wherein in para no.4,5 and 6, it is observed by the Apex Court that,

“In view of the rival submissions at the bar, the first question that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Magistrate, directing issuance of process can be said to be such an interlocutory order, which is not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction under section 397 in view of the bar in subsection (2) thereof. Sub-Section (2) of Section 397 reads thus: The powers of revision conferred by subsection (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.

The very object of conferring revisional jurisdiction upon the superior criminal courts is to correct miscarriage of justice a