A summoning order passed under Section 204, Cr. P. C. is an interlocutory order and revision against such an order is not maintainable.

This revision has been directed against the summoning order dated 11-1-93 passed by C. J. M. , Chamoli in Criminal Case No. 554 of 1992 under Section 406/420,i. P. C. A preliminary objection was taken, that in view of the law as laid down in Kailash Chaudhari and others vs. State of U. P. and another, 1994 All. L. J. 174 the revision against the summoning order is not, Maintainable. In that case it was held that An order issuing process on ex. parte consideration of the complaint and the material under Section 204 of the Code being only a step towards trial is an inter locutory order. Under Section 397 (2), Cr. P. C. no Revision lies against an inter locutory order.

2. It was, however, urged that in view of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Amar Naths case reported in AIR 1977 S. C. 2185 and Madhu Limayes case reported in AIR 1978 S. C. 47 the revision - against the summoning order is main tainable.

3. In Smt. Swaran Anand and others v. Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1977 (14) A. C. C. 6, it was held by the High Court that order summoning an accused person under Section 204, Cr. P. C. is an interlocutory order. Revision against such an order is barred under Section 397 (2) of Cr. P. C. This ruling went to the extent of saying that the provisions of Section 482, Cr. P. C. cannot be applied.

4 In M/s. Resolute of India Ltd. and another v. Munsif Magistrate, Hawaii and another, 1978 (15) A. C. C. 126, it was held that The order of the Magistrate summon ing the accused is an interlocutory order. In Hare Ram Satpathy v. Tika Ram Agarwal, 1978 AC. C. 356, it was held by the Supreme Court that It is well settled that once the Magistrate has after satisfying himself prima fade that there is sufficient materials for proceeding against the accused issued process against him, the High Court cannot go into the matter in its revisional jurisdiction which is very limited.

5. In Khacheru Singh v. State of U. P. , AIR 1982 S. C. 784, it was held that We do not see any justification, though we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case for the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in Criminal Revision No. 83 of 1979 which was affirmed by the High Court of Allahabad by its order dated 7-5-80. All that the learned Magistrate had done was to issue a summons to respondent No. 2 Satyavir Singh if, eventually, the learned Magistrate comes to the conclusion that no offence was made out against Satyavir Singh, it will be open to him to discharge or acquit him, as the case may be. But it is difficult to appreciate why the order issuing summons to the

accused should be quashed. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Sessions Court and the High Court, restore that of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Meerut dated February 2, 1979 and remit the matter to the trial court for disposal in accordance with law.

6. In Bindbasni and others v. State of U. P. , 1976 AC. C. 183, a Division Bench of this Court held that The expression interlocutory order or final order have not been defined in the Code any where. In order to Judge whether or not a particular order amounts to an interlocutory or final order we have to look to the authorities wherein those terms have been defined or explained.

7. Every order passed during the proceeding of a case, if it does not finally decide the case, is interlocutory and on that account no distinction can be made amongst different interlocutory orders on the ground that one is passed at the preliminary stage of the proceedings whereas the order is passed at a later stage.

8. In G. D. Mukerji v. Shyam Lal Tewari, 1978 A. C. C. 313, this Court held that The position appears to be very clear that under Section 397 (2), Cr. P. C. a court of revision has no power to interfere with an interlocutory order passed in any appeal enquiry trial or other proceedings.

9. In K. M. Mathew v. State of Kerala and another, 1992 JIC 212 (SC) it was held by the