Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anoop Dhand
For the Respondent: Mr. Jitendra Shrimali, Mr. K.K. Mathur

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• The case involves a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner-complainant against an order passed by the Sessions Judge in a criminal revision proceeding (!) (!) .
• The core issue pertains to the maintainability of a revision petition against an interlocutory order, specifically an order under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) which deals with the recall of witnesses for cross-examination (!) (!) .
• The petitioner contends that the order under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is interlocutory, and therefore, the revision against such an order is not maintainable under the relevant statutory provisions (!) (!) .
• The respondents and their counsel support the impugned order, arguing that it was passed to meet the ends of justice and that the revision petition should be dismissed (!) .
• The court considered legal principles, noting that orders under Section 311 Cr.P.C. are interlocutory in nature, and such orders are barred from revision under the specific provisions of the law (!) (!) .
• The court observed that the revision petition was exercised beyond its jurisdiction because it attempted to challenge an interlocutory order, which is prohibited by law (!) .
• Consequently, the court found that the revision petition was not maintainable and that the impugned order, to the extent it reversed the earlier decision regarding the application under Section 311, was liable to be quashed and set aside (!) .

Would you like a more detailed analysis or assistance with specific legal implications?