The revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. is available to challenge the order of issuance of process, as clarified by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT

A. S. Gadkari, J. - By the present Petition, the Petitioners have impugned Order dated 19th January, 2005, passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Revision Application No.33 of 2005 thereby, dismissing the said Revision Application on the ground that, the Order impugned therein, dated 3rd December 2004, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (P.M.C.), Pune issuing process under Sections 167 and 409 read with Section 120 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC") against the Petitioners herein, in Regular Criminal Case No.22 of 2004 is an interlocutory Order.

2. Heard Mr. Pethe, learned counsel for the Petitioners. Record indicates that, the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 (Original 3 Shri. Mukari Shetty Algude, Adult, Occupation: Social Worker & Member of Standing Committee, Pune Municipal Corporation, Residing at 336, Old Wadarwadi, Pune - 411 016.3 Shri. Mukari Shetty Algude, Adult, Occupation: Social Worker & Member of Standing Committee, Pune Municipal Corporation, Residing at 336, Old Wadarwadi, Pune - 411 016.Complainant) have been duly served and an Affidavit of Service dated 8 th December, 2005 has been filed by the Petitioners on record. The Respondent No.5 is the former Municipal Commissioner of Pune Municipal Corporation and is a formal party to the present Petition. Respondent No.6, State of Maharashtra is also formal party and is being represented by the learned APP.

3. Record indicates that, the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have filed the aforestated Complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (P.M.C.), Pune on 28th October, 2004 for the alleged offences committed by the Petitioners under Sections 166, 167, 409 and 465 read with Section 120(b) of the IPC. Learned Trial Court, after recording verification of Respondent No.1-Shri. Ramesh R. Dhondage, was pleased to issue process against all the Petitioners and Respondent No.5, the then Commissioner of Pune Municipal Corporation under Sections 167, 409 read with Section 120 of the IPC, by its Order dated 3rd December, 2004.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said Order dated 3rd December, 2004, the Petitioners preferred Criminal Revision Application No.33 of 2005, in the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. The Revisional Court, by its impugned Judgment and Order dated 19th January, 2005 was pleased to dismiss the said Revision Application predominantly on the ground that, an Order of issuance of process is an interlocutory Order and therefore, the said Order cannot be challenged by way of Revision, invoking the provisions of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Revisional Court has relied on two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the impugned Order, namely (i) Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal & Ors, (2004) 7 SCC 338 and (ii) K.M. Mathew Vs. State of Kerala, (1992) 1 SCC 217.

5. Mr. Pethe, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that, the Trial Court while passing the impugned Order did not take into consideration the decisions of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 : AIR 1978 SC 47 and V.C. Shukla Vs. State through CBI, (1980) AIR SC 962 : 1980 Supp. SCC 92 in which it is held that, Order issuing process can be challenged in the Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.. He therefore, prayed that, the impugned Order dated 19th January 2005, passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Pune may be quashed and set aside by relegating the Petitioners to the jurisdiction of Revisional Court.

6. A useful reference, at this stage, can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, (2019) AIR SC 2499 wherein, after taking into consideration various decisions in the field, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.25 has observed as under:-

25 After referring to various judgments, in Urmila Devi,2013 AIROnlineSC 343), this Court summarised