JUDGMENT - B.G. DEO, J.:---I have heard Shri Deshpande for the applicant-revision petitioner. Shri Bhide for the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and Shri Sinha Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. In this revision petition the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, on 18-5-1985, allowing the revision filed before him against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malkapur, issuing process against accused-respondents for the offence punishable under sections 420, 109 read with section 34, I.P.C. has been challenged. In the revision before the learned Sessions Judge, the Court by allowing the revision petition set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malkapur, and dismissed the complaint. 3. Shri Deshpande has now challenged in this revision petition before this Court the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on the short ground that the order passed by the learned Magistrate under section 204, Cri.P.C. being an interlocutory order the revision before the learned Sessions Judge was barred under sub-section (2) of section 397, Cri.P.C. 4. That an order of issuing process under section 204, Cri.P.C. 1973, is an interlocutory order cannot now be gain said as this Court had an occasion to decide the said question in (Shriram Damodar Mulay and another v. Thakurdas Ramnarayan and another)1, 1977 Mh.L.J. 581. This Court has held in that case as below : "Order is only an interlocutory order as contemplated by section 397(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and as such, a revision is not tenable." This view is supported by latest decision of the Supreme Court in (Khacheru Singh v. State of U.P. and another)2, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 784. The Supreme Court has held that : "If eventually, the learned Magistrate comes to the conclusion that no offence was made out against Satyavir Singh, it will be open to him to discharge or acquit him, as the case may be. But it is difficult to appreciate why the order issuing "summons" to the accused should be quashed. The Supreme Court has held that : "If eventually, the learned Magistrate comes to the conclusion that no offence was made out against Satyavir Singh, it will be open to him to discharge or acquit him, as the case may be. But it is difficult to appreciate why the order issuing "summons" to the accused should be quashed. We, therefore, set aside the orders passed by the Sessions Court and the High Court, restore that of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Meerut dated February 2, 1979, and remit the matter to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law." It is for the trial Court to exercise discretion under section 204, Cri.P.C. and the matter being an interlocutory one it is not for the revisional Court either to entertain a revision against such an order or to quash the same on merits. Such an order can be challenged only under section 482, Cri.P.C. under it's inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. 5. It is not necessary for this Court to go into the merits of this case. Suffice it to say that the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction nor had any reason to depart from the discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate while exercising revisional jurisdiction over the subject matter. If the respondents feel aggrieved by the process issued by the learned Magistrate, they are free to move this Court under section 482, Cri.P.C. even though considerable time has lapsed after the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The revision is, therefore, allowed and the following order is passed. 6. The revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 18-5-1985 in Criminal Revision No. 72 of 1979 dismissing the complaint is hereby quashed and set aside and the order passed by the learned Magistrate, Malkapur in Criminal Case No. 717 of 1979 on 21-9-1979 is hereby restored and the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with the law. Revision petition allowed. -----