This revision has been directed against the summon ing order passed by IV Addl. C. J. M. , Shahjahanpur in Crime No. 272 of 1988 under Sections 147, 307, 504 and 506, IPC, P. S. Seramau North, Shahjahanpur. A preliminary objection was raised as to whether a revision against the summoning order is maintainable.

2. In Kailash Chaudhari v. State of U. P. , 1994 Ail LJ 174 : 1994 JIC 422 it was held that an order issuing process on exparte consideration of the complaint and the material under Section 204 of the Code being only a step towards trial is an interlocutory order against which no revision lies.

3. It was, however, argued on behalf of the revisionist that in view of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Amar Naths case, AIR 1977 SC 2185 and Madhu Limaye v. Sate of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 the order in question is not an interlocutory order, la Amar Naths case the summoning order was not taken as an interlocutory order in the facts and cir cumstances of the case. The Magistrate in that case although required to hold fresh enquiry issued process straightway without complying with the order of remand, and in such circumstances it was held not to be an