Revision against interlocutory orders is barred under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 1 ) THE petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer that judgment and order dated 9. 10. 1996 passed by Shri I. C. Tewari, Additional Sessions Judge in Cri. R. No. 25/96 whereby orders dated 12. 4. 1996 passed by Special Executive Magistrate, Delhi in the matter relating to breach of peace under Sections 107 and 111 be quashed.

( 2 ) THE order dated 12. 4. 1996 passed by the Special Executive Magistrate reads as follows :-

"heard the 1. 0. I am satisfied from the information received and facts before me and of the view that there are sufficient grounds to proceed u/s 107/150 Cr. P. C. against respondents. Issue notice u/s 107/111 Cr,p. C. to the respondents Case to come up.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER oh 3. 6. 1996, the same Special Executive Magistrate, passed the following order in the same proceedings.

"respondents are present except No. 3 Mrs. Sudha Dahiya; I. 0. and P. W. also present. Issue available warrant to No. 3 Sudha Dahiya and ordered that they must bring interim Surety on next date. A letter to SHO to report whether respondents weapon has been deposited in Malkhana of Sonepat and case be sent to licensing branch for cancellation of their weapon. Heard both the parties. It,is learnt that on 24. 9. 93-Miss Sudha Dahiya was married to complainant Bal Kishans booken s son. Respondents No. 1 and 2 during the proceedings are verbally warned to behave in a disciplinary manner. Case to come up on 10. 7. 96 at 2. 00 P. M. Date and time announced in the open court. The statement of I. P. P. W. and respondent Raj Narain is recorded. "

( 4 ) THE persons against whom notice were issued filed a Criminal Revision Petition No. 25/96, which was heard by Shri I. C. Tewari, Additional Sessions Judge; It was disposed of vide the impugned order dated 9. 10. 1996. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contended before me that the orders dated 12. 4. 1996 and 3. 6. 1996 passed by the Special Executive Magistrate were interlocutory orders - and as such revision was barred under the provisions of Section 397 Cr. P. C. This petition was filed on 12. 3. 1997 whereas the impugned judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was made on- 9. TO. 19961 There is no explanation as to why the petitioner waited for almost five months to challenge the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge especially when the matter related to breach of peace and was to be dealt with by an Executive Magistrarte.

( 5 ) ON hearing the learned counsel for petitioner and on going through the record of the case, for the reasons given in the following paragraphs, I do not consider it to be a fit case where this Court should interfere under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 6 ) THE matter before the Special Executive Magistrate was that of breach of peace and not of trial of any offence. The petitioner had made a complaint to the Police regarding breach of peace and the police after preparing a kalendra preached the concerned Special Executive Magistrate whereby order dated 12. 4. 1996 was passed under which the Magistrate directed issuing of notice under Section 107/111 Cr. P. C. Section 111 Cr. P. C. lays down that when a Magistrarte acting under Section 107 deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be enforced and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required. Order dated 12. 4; 1996 did not at all comply with the requirements of Section 111 Cr. P. C. The learned additional Sessions, Judge in the revisional order has also made a mention that the Special Executive-Magistrate did not apply his mind while acting under Section 107 Cr. P. C. as. he did not comply with the provisions of Section 111 Cr. P. C. There is nothing on record to show that by any sub