A summoning order passed under Section 204 of the Cr. P. C. is an intermediate order and is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court or the High Court.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the order dated 22-4-1994 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Revision No. 42 of 1994, Ram Kishan v. State.

( 2 ) I have heard Sri. I. M. Khan counsel for applicant as well as learned A. G. A. and perused the material brought on record.

( 3 ) THE applicant filed a complaint case against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 under Sections 342, 323, 504, 506, 348, I. P. C. before the C. J. M. Aligarh and examined himself and his two witnesses Ashok Kumar P. W. 1 and Rakesh Kumar P. W. 2 under Section 202, Cr. P. C. The learned C. J. M. was pleased to find a prima facie case and summoned the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 by his order dated 29-10-1993. They filed a Criminal Revision No. 42 of 1994 before the Sessions Judge, Aligarh which was heard and decided by the VI Additional Sessions Judge Aligarh who was pleased to allow the revision and set aside the summoning order dated 29-10-1993 and discharged the revisionists-opposite party Nos. 2 to 5. The complainant felt aggrieved against this order passed in criminal revision.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the learned Sessions Judge did not have jurisdiction under Section 397 (2), Cr. P. C. to entertain the revision against the summoning order which was of interlocutory nature. In support of his contention, he has referred to the decisions of this Court in the case of Kailash Chaudhary v. State of U. P. , 1994 Cri LJ 67, and Anil Kumar Mathur v. State of U. P. , 1994 ACC 535. It is true that against the summoning order passed by the Magistrate in complaint case, it has been decided that the personsummoned on ex parte consideration of material or evidence must appear and file objection before the same Court which is competent to recall the ex parte order and can even drop the proceeding if it is satisfied that the case is not made out. But these decisions do not totally create a bar before the Court of Sessions or the High Court for entertaining a revision against a summoning order. In the leading cases of Madhu-Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, 1977 (4) SCC 551 : AIR 1978 SC 47); Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2185 and V. C. Shukla v. State, AIR 1980 SC 962, the Honble Supreme Court has held that the expression interlocutory order has been used in Section 397 (2) of the Code with a restricted sense. It denoted order of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important right or liability of the parties and any order which essentially affects the right of the accused is not an inerlocutory order. The following observations made by the Honble Supreme Court are worth reproduction :- ". . . But undoubtedly in the context of Section 397 (2) read with Section 482 of the Code, this Court with a view to providing a judicial umbrella of active supervision for reaching possible correctable justice by activist attitude and pragmatic interpretation found a third class of orders neither interlocutory nor final but intermediate and, therefore, outside the bar of Section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. . . Having given a thoughtful consideration my humble view is that the Supreme Court in V. C. Shuklas cases (supra) has upheld the view taken by Honble UNTWALIA, J. (as he then was) in Madhu Limayes case (supra) that sub-Section (2) of Section 397 of the new Code kept purely interlocutory orders beyond the purview of sub-Section (1) of Section 397 and not intermediate orders. In other words, intermediate orders are amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of either the Sessions Court or the High Court, what is an intermediate order ? The meaning of this term is contained in volume 60 of the Corpus Juris Secondum, It says :"an intermediate order has been defined as the one made between the commencement of an action and the entry of the judgement. ""and this has been approved by the Supreme Court in V. C. Shuklas case (supr