JUDGMENT N.B. Asthana, J.
1. This revision has been directed against the order dated 8.5.91 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur in Criminal Case No. 1430 of 1991 summoning the revisionist for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. A preliminary point was raised as to whether the revision is maintainable.
2. In Kailash Chaudhari and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., 1994 All. L.J. 174 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 in view of the bar created under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. Reliance on behalf of the revisionist has been placed upon Ram Pratap Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P., 1991 J.I.C. 333 in which it was held that summoning order passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. is revisable.
3. In Smt. Swaran Anand and Ors. v. Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1977(14) A.C.C. 6, it was held by this Court that order summoning accused persons under Section 204 Cr.P.C. is interlocutory order. Revision against the order is barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. It was further held that provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. also cannot be applied.
4. In M/s. Prestolite of India Ltd. and Anr. v. The Munsif Magistrate, Hawaii and Anr., 1978(15) A.C.C. 126, also it was held that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused is an interlocutory order.
5. In Hare Ram Satpathy v. Tika Ram Agarwal, 1978 A.C.C. 356 it was held by the Supreme Court that "It is well settled that once the Magistrate has after satisfying himself prima facie 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".
6. In Khacheru Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1982 S.C. 784, the Magistrate had summoned respondent No. 2-Satyavir Singh. The Additional Sessions Judge upon a revision set aside that order. The High Court confirmed that order. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that what the learned Magistrate had done was to issue a summon to respondent No. 2-Satyavir Singh. If, eventually, the learned Magistrate comes to the conclusion that no offence was made out against respondent No. 2-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. The orders passed by the Sessions Court and the High Court were set aside and that of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Meerut was restored. The matter was remitted to the Trial Court for disposal in accordance with law.
7. In Kailash Chaudhari's case (supra) a number of rulings were considered and on a consideration of these rulings it was held that the summoning order is not revisable. The case of Amur Nath v. State of U.P., AIR 1977 S.C. 2185, was also considered. In that case the summoning order was held to be an interlocutory order in the peculiar circumstances of that case because the Magistrate without following the order of the superior Court issued process under Section 204 Cr. P.C. straightway. The case of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 47, would also not help the revisionist. In that case it was held that an order rejecting the application or plea of the accused which if accepted would have concluded the proceedings e.g. as to the jurisdiction of the Court would not be interlocutory even though it may not be categorized as final order because the effect of the rejection is a continuation of the proceedings. It is not the case here. The remedy of the revisionist lies in approaching the Magistrate himself, as held in K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, 1992 Criminal Law Journal 3779=I (1992) CCR 316 (SC) and to say that there was not sufficient ground to proceed in the matter whereupon the Magistrate would be duty bound to decide the question after considering the view points of the accused on the question of their being prima facie case constituting sufficient ground to proceed and on the question whether the material, if any, brought on record shows that the accused is frivolous and vexatious. The above view of the Supreme Court was confirmed in State of Rajasthan v. Aruna Devi and Ors., J.T. 1994(7) S.C. 522.
8. In view of the above no revision lies against the summoning order. The revision is accordingly dismissed. The stay order granted on 22.8.91 is vacated.