Cr Msc 164/07 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Cr. Msc. Petition No.164/2007 Ramjilal Meena & Suresh Jain Versus State & Mst Trivendi Devi Date of Order ::: 11/12/07 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Jai Raj Tantia, for petitioners (accused) Mr. Arun Sharma, Public Prosecutor Mr. Rajnish Gupta, for respondent (complainant) Instant petition U/s 482, CrPC has been filed by accused against taking of cognizance of offences U/Ss 420, 465, 468, 471, 201 & 120-B, IPC vide order dt.07/09/06 in FIR-42/03 PS Sapotra (Karauli), against which revision petition is maintainable. Counsel for respondent submits that co-accused persons have also challenged the order taking cognizance impugned by filing revision petition which is pending before Court of Revision. That apart, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Tajji Vs. State (2006(4) RLW 3432) after taking note of decisions of Apex Court and so also of this Court has observed that order of process issued is not interlocutory and revision is maintainable against it :- “8. In the instant case, if the contention of the present petitioner in respect of the order issuing process is Cr Msc 164/07 //2// 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 judges bench of the Apex Court in the case of Madhu Limaye (1977 (4) SCC 551) has re-affirmed the decision in the case of Amarnath (1977 (4) SCC 137) the point that the impugned order of Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process is not an interlocutory order.” In view of what has been observed in judgment (supra), this court is not inclined to invoke inherent powers U/s 482, CrPC. Consequently, misc. petition is dismissed . However, petitioner may avail of remedy under law if so advised; and if application U/s 5 of the Limitation Act is filed alongwith revision petition within four weeks from today, it is expected of the Court of Revision to consider the the same objectively taking note of pendency of instant petition before this Court. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p2/164CrMscP07rmdy.doc