The main legal point established in the judgment is the clarification of the legal provisions regarding revisional jurisdiction, interlocutory orders, and the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. By making this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. the petitioner, who was complainant in Complaint Case No. 209/2004, has sought" for, inter alia, setting aside and quashing the judgment and order, dated 2-5-2005, passed, in Criminal Revision No. 6(l)/2005, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, has set aside the order, dated 3-8-2004, passed, in Complaint Case No. 209/2004, whereby the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, took cognizance of offences under Section 420/506/294/34, IPC and directed issuance of processes to the accused named therein.

2. The material facts, which have led to the making of the present application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. may be set out as follows:

(i) The petitioner herein lodged a complaint, which gave rise to the Complaint Case No. 209/2004 aforementioned, the complainant's case being, briefly stated, thus : The complainant is the proprietor of a business concern, which is run under the name and style of Assam Valley Builders, situated at Morioni Road, Rajabari, Dibrugarh. The accused No. 11, namely, Khowang Tea Estate, is a tea division of accused No. 1, namely, Andrew Yule & Company Ltd. which is a government undertaking. As per quotations, invited by the accused persons for repairing of machinery and equipments of Khowang Tea Estate, which is located within the district of Dibrugarh, the complainant submitted quotations to accused No. 7. Following the quotations, so submitted, accused No. 7 negotiated with the complainant the cost of the repairing charges and, as had been agreed to by the parties concerned, accused No. 7 issued work order to the complainant. On completion of the work, so allotted to the complainant, the complainant submitted bills to accused-opposite party for a total sum of Rs. 1,56,760/- for payment and, on receipt of the bills, accused No. 7 agreed to pay the bills within a month; but the bills were never paid, whereupon the complainant issued, on 31-5-2004, legal notices to the accused persons, but the accused persons failed to pay the said amount, rather, on receipt of the notices, the accused persons threatened the complainant, on 29-6-2004, at about 6.00 a.m. over telephone.

(ii) On receipt of the complaint from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, recorded the statement of the complainant on 3-9-2004 and upon finding that a prima facie case had been made out against the accused, named in the complaint, under Sections420/506/294/34, IPC, took cognizance of the offences aforementioned and ordered issuance of summons to the accused. Aggrieved by the order, dated 3-8-2004, whereby cognizance of the offences aforementioned had been taken and the directions for issuance of summons to the accused had been passed, the accused impugned the same by way of a revision. This revision was allowed, as indicated hereinabove, and the order, dated 3-8-2004, was set aside. It is in these circumstances that the complainant is, now, before this Court with this application made under Section 482, Cr. P.C.

3. I have heard Mr. P. P. Bora, learned Counsel for the complainant-petitioner, and Mr. P. J. Saikia, learned Counsel for the accused-opposite party.

4. Presenting the case on behalf of the complainant-petitioner, Mr. Bora has submitted that the order taking cognizance of offences and directing issuance of processes is an 'interlocutory order' and against such an order, revision being barred by Section 397(2), Cr. P.C. the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have entertained the revision, Mr. Bora also challenges the correctness of the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge that the order, dated 3-8-2004, taking cognizance of offences and directing issuance of processes, is bad in law on the ground that there is no formal order taking cognizance of offences before the statement of the complainant had been recorded under Section200, Cr. P.C.

5. Mr. Bora has further submitted that the