1. This order shall govern maintainability of this application under section 482 CrP.C.

2. This application under section 482 CrPC is directed against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dewas in Criminal Case No.463/2016 dated 22.2.2016 whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the applicants under section 406 of IPC.

3. The respondent is a private limited company. A criminal complaint was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under sections 406, 420 and 120B of IPC alleging therein that the complainant/company was manufacturing various parts of mono-block pump and supplied the product to Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. according to their order. One unit of the company was situated at Karad. After withdrawal of order by Kirloskar Brothers, it was decided by the complainant/company that the unit of the company at Karad would be wound up and all the machines, dies, and other equipments would be returned to Dewas Unit of the complainant. The petitioners No.1 to 4 were officers and employees of the company while petitioner No.4 is the company which was running the unit at Karad.

4. The civil suit was also filed by the respondent praying therein that the petitioners should refund Rs.90,00,000/- price of the machineries, stocks and other material which were not returned by them to the Dewas Unit of the company.

5. The complaint was filed to punish them under the sections as aforesaid.

6. This application is filed without filing any revision before the Sessions Court against the order passed by the Magistrate, and therefore, a question arose on last date whether this application is maintainable without filing a revision before the competent Court.

7. The counsel was heard on question of maintainability.

8. The counsel for the State opposes the application on the ground that without filing a revision petition before the competent Court, the applicants cannot be approached directly to this Court.

9. Learned counsel for the applicants cite judgment of Hon'ble apex Court in case of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal [(2004)7 SCC 338]. In this case, it was held that the Magistrate has no power to recall its own order, and therefore, any order recalling the process issued against the accused persons in a criminal complaint is bad in law. In that case, on directions issued by the High Court, the Magistrate heard the accused persons and then withdrew its own order directing issuance of process against the accused persons. Learned counsel also places reliance on judgment of Hon'ble apex Court in case of Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra and another [(2004)13 SCC 324]. It was held that in order under section 204 of CrPC for issuance of process is an interlocutory order and no revision lies against this order. The only remedy is to file an application under section 482 CrPC. The next case cites by the learned senior counsel is Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited and others v. State of Maharashtra and another [(2009)2 SCC 370]. In this case it was held that the application under section 482 CrPC should not be dismissed merely on the ground that no revision was filed by the petitioner when order is revisable. In this case, the Hon'ble apex Court overruled the principle laid down in case of V.K. Jain v. Pratap v. Padode [(2005)30 Mah LJ 778], in which it was held that jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, the jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC should not be exercised if recourse can be taken by the applicants to the remedy of filing a revision application under section 397 CrPC of the Code and finally held that filing of the revision is not a conditioned precedence and Court and the High Court have ample power to exercise jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC r/w section 483 CrPC a similar principle was laid down in case of Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan [(2016)0 SCC 686], it was held that not filing a revision before the Court is no bar w