Short Note : 1. The short facts giving rise to this application are that the complainant Prakash Chandra lodged a report against the applicant at police station. Badnawar on 7-1-77 alleging that the applicant endangered the life of the complainant by driving his motor-cycle in such a rash and negligent manner that it might have caused hurt or injury to his person and also abused him in a public place at that time. On the basis of this report, the police investigated the matter and filed the challan against the applicant. 2. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence after perusing the report and the case diary papers and after being satisfied, framed charges against the applicant under section 279 read with section 504, I.P.C. Held: Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the facts disclosed by the prosecution do not make out the offence and, consequently, the learned trial Court has committed an error of law in framing the charges, and in support of this submission, he placed reliance on a decision or the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy ( AIR 1977 SC 1489 ). But in my opinion, this revision deserves to be dismissed on the short ground that such a revision against an interlocutory order is not maintainable more so, when the applicant had already filed one revision before the Learned Sessions Judge. That apart, the learned Magistrate had, the jurisdiction to get himself satisfied before flaming the charge and the discretion exercised by him cannot be said to be perverse, improper or unreasonable or such which has resulted in miscarriage of justice or is glaringly defective. Therefore, no interference with the discretionary order is called for in this revision as the applicant is at liberty to contest the case on merits because this is not a case where apparently there is absolutely no material against the applicant regarding the alleged offence. Revision dismissed.