T. Sudanthiram, J.

The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 233 of 2009 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Erode. A private complaint for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the petitioner herein. After talking Sworn statement, the learned Magistrate issued summons, to the accused who is the revision petitioner herein. Challenging the summons issued to the accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Erode, the petitioner has preferred this revision.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that thought the entire cheque amount has been repaid to the complainant, the Cheque return memo was forged and the complaint has been filed against the accused.

3. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that this revision challenging the issuance of the summons is not maintainable and relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal (2005) 1 MLJ (Crl) 166 and Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharastra and another, AIR 2004 SC 4711 : (2005) SCC (Crl) 242.

4. The learned Counsel for the pelitioner submitted that the issuance of summons is an interlocutory order and