Hon’ble Virendra Vikram Singh, J.—Heard Shri B. P. Verma, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri R. P. Misra, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

The challenge in the present revision is to the order dated 9.12.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate-V, Mathura in case crime No. 240/ix/2009. By the impugned order, the present revisionists alongwith Smt. Laxmi Singh, wife of revisionist No. 1 has been summoned to face trial for the offence under Sections 420 and 120 B IPC.

2. The accusation against the accused persons have been brought forward by moving an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by Smt Rani, wife of Laxman. With the facts that her husband is mentally sick and his mental age is hardly that of a kid of 4 or 5 years. He owns plots Nos. 274 and 202 of different areas in village Kurkunda P.S. Farah, District Mathura. Because of his poor mental condition, Laxman was not employed anywhere and he frequently used to visit the company of Tunda and Ramjeet presently revisionist Nos. 4 and 5. Tunda was employed as driver with revisionist No. 1, who also employed Laxman as guard at his house. The complainant came to know that Rameshwar Singh got executed the sale-deed of the entire holding from Laxman, her husband, by way of two different sale-deeds. One sale-deed was executed in favour of Vijay Pal and Ganesh and the other sale-deed was executed in favour of Smt. Laxmi wife of Rameshwar Singh. The complainant while came to know about these sale-deeds, she complained the matter to Tunda and Ramjeet, who assured for the cancellation of these documents but did not adhere to their promise. On these facts, the accusation was levelled that the accused persons having hatched a conspiracy, got executed sale-deed of the property of her husband, costing about Rs. 1.5 crores. The remaining two accused revisionists are the marginal witness to the sale-deed executed in favour of Smt. Laxmi.

3. The application of Smt. Rani under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was treated as complaint. During the course of inquiry, Smt Rani examined herself under Section 200 Cr.P.C and Shyam Singh and Amar Singh were examined as witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

4. Having gone through the evidence on record the learned Magistrate by passing the impugned order summoned the accused persons to face trial for the offence under Section 420 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC.

On behalf of the respondents, a preliminary objection has been put forth that the revision is not maintainable against the impugned summoning order as the order is interlocutory and not revisable under the provisions of Sectoon 397(2), of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”). Since this issue of maintainability of the revision has been raised, the Court proposes to decide this issue first.

5. In support to the contention that the revision against the order of summoning is not maintainable reliance has been placed on the decisions of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and others, 2004 All JIC 792, Rajbali and others v. State of U.P and another, 2007 (2) All JIC 239. On behalf of the revisionist the argument has been controverted.

6. In the case of Adalat Prasad (Supra), Hon’ble the Apex Court has held that a Magistrate summoning the accused to face the trial has no power to review its order. The remedy lies by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. After the pronouncement in the case of Adalat Prasad referred to above, in the case of Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 All JIC 44 (SC), the Apex Court again held that the order of summoning the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C is an intermediary order.

7. The provisions of Section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits the maintenance of revisional jurisdiction of Court against an interlocutory order. In both the two cases, i.e. Adalat Prasad and Subramanium Sethuraman referred to above, it was not specifically laid down that the order of summoning the a