An order issuing summons under Section 204 of the New Code is an intermediate order, not an interlocutory order, and is therefore subject to revision.

( 1 ) THIS criminal revision and the companion Criminal Misc. Application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the New Code) are directed against the same order dated 26th May, 1984, passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Etawah, summoning the applicants for haying committed an alleged offence under sections 147, 148, 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They can, therefore be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) A complaint was filed by opposite party No. 2, Ram Bharosey, setting out the facts which constitute the offences alleged to have been committed by the applicants. Paragraphs 18 and 19 of the complaint are relevant and may be quoted as below:

18 That the complainant has now learnt that the police is intending the challan of the complainants, party and file a report in the complainants case. 19. That in order to prevent such an event which is contrary to justice and fair play which requires both the cases to be investigated and sent up, the complainant has no option but to file this complaint"

( 3 ) THE only submission made on behalf of the applicants is that in view of the afore-quoted averments in the complaint, the learned Munsif - Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in issuing processes against the applicants. This submission is founded on Section 210 of the New Code.

( 4 ) BEFORE entering into the merits a decision has to be given as to whether the order issuing summons to the applicants in the purported exercise of powers under section 204 of the New Code constitutes as interlocutory order within the meaning of sub-section 397 (2) of the New Code. If the answer is in the affirmative the revision application has to be dismissed as not maintainable. If it is held that the revision is maintainable the companion Criminal Misc. Application will have to be dismissed as not maintainable as now it is well settled that a particular order cannot be the subject matter of proceedings under section 4. 82 of the New Code if it is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

( 5 ) UNDER the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1893 (hereinafter referred to as the Old Code) any order passed by any criminal court, if not appeal able, was revisable. Such an order could be either interlocutory or intermediate or quasi-final or final. The revisional power was contained in Section 435 of the Old Code. Section 439 of the said Code empowered the High Court to exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of appeal by a number of provisions referred to therein including Section 423. The provisions contained in Section 423 talked of power of an appellate Court in disposing of an appeal. The New Code Act No. 2 of 1974) repealed the Old Code. By it, the Parliament introduced significant changes in the Old Code.

( 6 ) SECTION 397 of the New Code confers revisional powers upon the High Court or any Sessions Judge. The contents of sub-section (1) of Section 397 of the New Code are in pan materia with the contents of sub-section (1) of Section 435 of the Old Code. Sub section (1) of section 399 of the New code provides that the Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub-Section (1) of Section 401. Under sub-section (1) of Section 401 the powers conferred upon a Court of appeal by numerous provisions including Section 386 have been made applicable to the High Courts while - exercising revisional powers. The contents of Section 386 of the New Code are in pan materia with the provisions contained in Section 423 of the Old Code. It would be thus seen that the Legislature in the New Code kept intact the powers conferred upon a revisional Court under the Old Code. However, in sub section (2) of Section 397 of the New Code a radical departure is witnessed. The said provision may be extracted hereunder: TI (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any