IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 856 of 2009 M/s Annanjay Information Tech. & Others …..Applicants. Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others ………….Respondents Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Mr. Kurban Ali, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Government Advocate for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents 1,2 & 3. Heard. For the reasons stated urgency application no. 3270 of 2009 is allowed. In view of urgency shown, matter is taken up today itself for hearing. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioners are assailing order dated 30th October, 2009 passed by District Judge, Pauri, thereby District Judge has rejected the revision filed by the applicants herein, by observing that no revision lies against the summoning order. Since respondent no. 4 was not served or called on or before passing of the impugned order and revision was dismissed by the impugned order at the admission stage, I propose to decide this petition at this stage without issuing notice to the respondent no. 4. 2 In the matter of Amar Nath Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 1977 (4) SCC 144, Hon’ble apex Court in Paragraph No. 10 thereof has observed as under: “10…. It was only with the passing of the impugned order that the proceedings started and the question of the appellants being put up for trial arose for the first time. This was undoubtedly a valuable right which the appellants possessed and which was being denied to them by the impugned order. It cannot, therefore, be said that the appellants were not at all prejudiced, or that any right of their’s was not involved by the impugned order. It is difficult to hold that the impugned order summoning the appellants straightaway was merely an interlocutory order which could not be revised by the High Court under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 397 of the 1973 Code. The order of the Judicial Magistrate summoning the appellants in the circumstances of the present case, particularly having regard to what had preceded, was undoubtedly a matter of moment, and a valuable right of the appellants had been taken away by the Magistrate’s passing an order prima facie in a mechanical fashion without applying his mind. We are, therefore, satisfied that the order impugned was one which was a matter of moment and which did involve a decision regarding the rights of the appellants. If the appellants were not summoned, then they could not have faced the trial at all, but by compelling the appellants to face a trial without proper application of mind cannot be held to be an interlocutory matter but one which decided a serious question as to the rights of the appellants to be put on trial.” 3 Hon’ble apex Court, in the matter of Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. & Others Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another, reported in 2009 (2) SCC Page 370 in Paragraph No. 6 held that issuance of summons is not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397 of the Code, hence revision is maintainable. In view of the dictum of the Supreme Court, impugned order cannot be sustained. The present petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Learned District Judge, Pauri is directed to admit the revision and to decide it on merit in accordance with law. (Alok Singh, J.) 02.12.2009 SKS