IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1015 of 2010 DHRUVA KUMAR . Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 02 15.07.2010 This matter has been listed under the headings for orders for consideration of the office/ stamp report. Office has pointed out as under:- “This is an application under Section 397 and 401 of the revision Court of the Code of Criminal Procedure of revisional jurisdiction does not seen to be maintainable. It may be converted into quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of miscellaneous jurisdiction.” Heard both sides. Learned counsel contesting the office report submits that it was specifically stated in the complaint petition itself that the matter may not be sent to the vigilance. Learned trial Court by the impugned order passed the following orders on 15.06.2010: ^^15-06-2010 ifjoknh dh gktjh nh xbZ] mudh vksj ls ,d vkosnu i= Hkh nkf[ky gqvk ifjoknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks iw.kZ :i ls lqukA dk;kZy; ifjokn i= dh izfrfyfi tkap ,oa izfrosnu gsrq Fkkuk izHkkjh fuxjkuh fcgkj iVuk dks HkstsA ifjoknh i= dh izfrfyfi nkf[ky djsaA fnukad 01-07-10 dks izLrqr djsaA ¼vKkfir½** It appears that learned trial court acted in its discretion in terms of Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as under: “202. Postponement of issue of process – (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorized to take 2 cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding: Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made- (a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions; or (b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200.” Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:- “397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision – (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding. Sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation- All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 398. (2) The power of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.” It is seen from sub-section 397( 2) that no revision is 3 maintainable in relation to any interlocutory order passed in the inquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to convince this Court that the order impugned is not interlocutory in nature. This Court, thus, upholds the stamp report/objection. Sujit ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)