D.B.Lal, J.

1. In this petition the order of the learned Magistrate, Sunam, dated 7th April, 1977, summoning the petitioner is being questioned. Mr. A.N. Mittal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused-petitioners being an interlocutory order, no petition is maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 397(2) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). That being so the inherent powers of this Court cannot be exercised for quashing the impugned order. He relies on the Single Bench decision of this Court in Surinder Mohan and others v. Smt. Kiran Saini, 1977 C.L.R. 212 in support of his contention. On the other hand it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is, infact, an order without jurisdiction as he did not discuss the evidence, at all and if that is so, the provisions of Section 39(2) of the Code will be no bar for exercising inherent powers vested in this Court for quashing the order passed by the Magistrate. The learned counsel relies on a decision in Niranjan Lal Bawri v. The State