1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.31 OF 2008 Mrs. Alaknanda Hanumandas Jakhotia .. Applicant Versus Mr.Satyanarayan Textiles and Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Neel G. Helekar for the applicant. Mr.I.M.Khairdi for respondent no.1a to 1b. Mr.H.S.Venegaonkar for respondent no.2. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P for the State. CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. DATE : 16th July 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1a to 1d as well as learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent. Perused the order dated 31 st July 2008. The said order records that the revision application will be decided at the stage of admission. 2. The applicant is the original complainant who filed a complaint alleging commission of offences under section 406, 420, 46 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On 01 st October 2007 the learned Magistrate passed an order on the said complaint directing that the complaint shall be kept for recording verification. On 04 th October 2007, the respondent No.1a challenged the said 2 order by filing a revision application under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. During the pendency of the said revision application, on 05 th October 2007 the learned Magistrate passed an order directing that a report be called for under section 202 of the said Code. By the impugned judgment and order dated 12 th October 2007, both the aforesaid orders have been set aside and the complaint filed by the applicant has been dismissed. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that the revision application preferred to by respondent No. 1a was not maintainable in as much as both the orders impugned were interlocutory in nature. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the merits of the complaint and has come to the conclusion that no offence was made out as the dispute was a civil dispute. Their submission is that as the complaint has been dismissed on merits, no interference is called for. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. The order under challenge in the revision application before the Sessions Court was an order passed on a private complaint directing that the complaint shall be put up for recording verification statement. The second order on the same complaint was of calling for report under 3 section 200 of the said Code. Both the orders are purely interlocutory in nature and therefore a revision application under section 397 of the said Code against the said orders was not maintainable. As the revision application was not maintainable, the Sessions Court could not have considered the merits of the complaint. Only on the ground that the revision application was not maintainable, the impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside. It is obvious that notwithstanding the quashing of the impugned order, remedies of the respondents to challenge the orders passed by the learned Magistrate are open and this Court has not considered the merits of the complaint. 4. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) Subject to what is observed above, the impugned judgment and order dated 12 th October 2007 is quashed and set aside and Criminal Revision Application No.78 of 2007 stands dismissed as not maintainable. (b) The orders passed by the learned Magistrate are restored. (c) All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. (A.S.OKA, J)