JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. The instant petition under [SECTION] [ACT] is directed against the order dated 27.4.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa in [CASE NUMBER] vide which the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.8.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui in [CASE NUMBER] was dismissed as not maintainable.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that non-petitioner herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner and seven others in the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) cum-A.C.J.M., Bandikui for offences Under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] with the allegation that she was married to [ENTITY] on 5.12.1999. After marriage, she was harassed for demand of dowry and ultimately she was turned out of the house. The complainant-non-petitioner examined herself under [SECTION] [ACT] and her witnesses namely; [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] Under [SECTION] [ACT] On the basis of the statements recorded under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] cognizance was taken against the petitioner on 31.8.2005 for offence Under [SECTION] [ACT] The petitioner preferred a criminal revision petition which was ultimately dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 27.4.2006 as indicated above. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner is the Bua of [ENTITY]. Both reside in different villages. The petitioner has nothing to do with the day to day affairs of [ENTITY]. She cannot be interested in the dowry. There is no specific allegation of demand of dowry against her in the complaint or statements recorded under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] He has, therefore, submitted that the learned court below has wrongly and illegally held that the revision petition is not maintainable.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that there being no specific allegation against the petitioner, the proceedings as against her deserve to be quashed and set-aside. He has submitted that the allegations against her are general as they are against other persons but cognizance has been taken only against [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY].
5. A perusal of the Statements of [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] reveals that there is allegation of demand of Rs. 1 lac and a motorcycle on the part of accused. But the learned court below has on the strength of the case of [ENTITY] v. Rooplal Jindal : held that the order issuing process is an interlocutory order against which no revision lies as the revision against such an order is barred under the provisions of [SECTION] [ACT]
6. But relying upon the decision in the case of [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT] , it has been held that the order issuing process is not an interlocutory order and revision could be preferred against such an order. In [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has observed that the question which arose for consideration in [ENTITY] v. Rooplal Jindal (supra), [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT] was whether the Magistrate could recall the process which was issued by him. In these cases, the question did not arise for consideration whether a revision could be preferred before the Sessions Court against the order issuing process. More over, in [ENTITY]'s case as is clear from para 8, the said question is not gone into. It is not the ratio decidendi of the judgment in [ENTITY]'s case. A revision against the order issuing process is not maintainable.
7. In [PRECEDENT] it has been laid down as to whether an order is interlocutory or not cannot be decided by merely looking at the order or merely because the order was passed at an interlocutory stage. The safe test is that if the contention of the petitioner who moves the superior Court in revision as against the order under challenge, is upheld, would the criminal proceedings as a whole culminate? If they would then the order is not an interlocutory order inspite of the fact that it was passed during any interlocutory stage.
8. In the instant case, if the contention of the present petitioner in respect of the order issuing process is upheld, the proceedings in the said case would come to an end. Hence, in the light of the above decision, the order issuing process cannot be said to be an interlocutory order even though It may have been passed at an interlocutory stage. A three Judge bench of the Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] (supra) has re-affirmed the decision in the case of [ENTITY], the point that the impugned order of Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process is not an interlocutory order.
9. In this view of the matter, therefore, the order of the learned court below dismissing the revision is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside.
10. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the order dated 27.4.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bandikui Distt. Dausa in [CASE NUMBER] is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the said learned Addl. Sessions Judge with the direction to decide it afresh on merits.