JUDGMENT I.G. Shah, J. - The original complainant in Criminal Case No. 55 of 1987 on the file of J.M.F.C., Court No.1, Pune, has preferred this revision application against the order passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 344 of 1988 on the file of Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune. Where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge, allowed the revision and set aside the order of the learned J.M.F.C. for issue of process against the accused i.e. the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and quashed the proceedings in the complaint case. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this revision application are as under: The original complainant filed a complaint against the present respondents Nos.1 and 2 in the Court of J.M.F.C., Court No.1, Pune, alleging that the accused No.2 is a Member of Balaji Cooperative Housing Society and that he had taken a Block No. 19A in the said Society and Share Certificate No. 22 is issued in his favour, that he wanted to sell the said Block and, therefore, on 248-1985 he had come to the complainant and had agreed to sell the said Block to the complainant for Rs. 1,25,000/- and in the presence of the witnesses had taken an advance of Rs. 1,000/- from the complainant, that the original Share Certificate and the copy of the Allotment Letter was also given to the accused respondent No.2 and thereafter, the respondent No.2 started avoiding to complete the said transaction in respect of the Block though the complainant was ready and willing to pay the entire amount, that the said transaction had taken place with the intervention of respondent No.1 that letter on as' the other people showed their willingness to pay more and give more commission, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention by creating false document and producing the same and by cheating the complainant sold the said Block to one Suresh Paratani and this .was disclosed to the complainant on his receiving the notice reply given by the accused persons and from that it was apparent that the respondents nos. 1 and 2 right from the beginning were intending to cheat the complainant and on the basis of false promises dishonestly with the intention to cheat had induced the complainant to part with Rs. 1 and 2 right from the beginning were intending to cheat the complainant and on the basis of false promises dishonestly with the intention to cheat had induced the complainant to part with Rs. 1001/- by making the show that the Block would be given to the complainant and thereby the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had cheated the complainant After recording verification statement of the complainant in support of the complaint, the learned Magistrate issued process under Section 420 R.W. 34 of the Indian Penal Code against respondents Nos. l and 2. It appears that along with the complaint, the complainant had also produced some documents consisting of xerox copies of Share Certificate, Allotment Letter, and Notice replies. Being aggrieved by order of the issue of process, the present respondents Nos. 1 and 2 preferred revision application to the Sessions Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, after hearing both the sides allowed the revision application filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and set aside the order of issue of process and quashed the proceedings. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, the complainant has come in revision to this Court. 3. On behalf of the revision-petitioner before this Court, it is contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no power while sitting in revision to interfere with the order of issue of process and quash the proceedings when the learned trial Magistrate had issued a process as prima facie offence was made out on the basis of the contents of the complaint, the verification statement and the documents produced by the complainant. The proposition that the revisional court under Section 397 has no power at all to interfere with the order of issue of process, definitely cannot be accepted as a correct one. The basis of the proposition is that the order of issue of process is an interlocutory order, and, therefore, revision against such an interlocutory order is not maintainable. Broadly speaking, normally the issue of process is an interlocutory order but it is not in all cases that the revisional court cannot interfere with the order of issue of process on the ground that it is an interlocutory order. In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra,1. Broadly speaking, normally the issue of process is an interlocutory order but it is not in all cases that the revisional court cannot interfere with the order of issue of process on the ground that it is an interlocutory order. In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra,1. It is clearly laid down that Ordinarily and generally the expression 'interlocutory order' has been understood and taken to mean as a converse of the term "final order". But an interpretation and the universal application of the principle that what is not a final order must be an interlocutory order is neither warranted nor justified. The Supreme Court further observed that if it were so it will render almost nugatory the revisional power of the Sessions Court or the High Court conferred on it by Section 397(1). On such 'a strict interpretation, only those orders would be revisable which are orders passed on the final determination of the action but are not appealable under Chapter XXIX of the Code, and, therefore, it docs not seem to be the intention of the Legislature when it retained the revisional power of the High Court in terms identical to the one in the 1898 Code. It is further observed in the said decision that though the words occurring in a, particular statute are plain and unambiguous, they have to be interpreted in a manner which would fit in this context of the other provisions of the statute and bring about the real intention of the legislature. On the one hand, the legislature kept intact the revisional power of the High Court and on the other it put a bar on the exercise of that power in relation to any interlocutory order. In such a situation it appears that the real intention of the legislature was not to equate the expression "interlocutory order". As invariably being converse of the word "final order"; The Supreme Court further held in the said decision that the order rejecting the plea of the accused on a point which, when accepted, will conclude the particular proceeding, will surely be not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2). Therefore, even the order of issue of process in a given case may not fall within the purview of "interlocutory order" as envisaged under Section 397(2). Therefore, even the order of issue of process in a given case may not fall within the purview of "interlocutory order" as envisaged under Section 397(2). If the issue of process is challenged on the ground which goes to the root of the case then definitely a revision can be said to be maintainable. So if the challenge is on the ground that the complaint read together with the verification statement and the material produced by the complainant before the Magistrate does not make out a case of the alleged offence prima facie then of course the order of issue of process definitely can be challenged even by preferring a revision either to the Sessions Court or High Court under Section 397(1). The broad proposition as was put by Mrs. Agarwal before me that no revision at all is maintainable against the order of issue of process is not a correct proposition in view of the decision in Madhu Limaye's case to which have referred to earlier. The argument tried to be raised in this respect is more spacious than in fact it is. Therefore, in the light of the said decision it would be necessary to consider in the present case as to whether the challenge offered by the present respondents Nos. 1 and 2 goes to the root of the case. If the answer is in the affirmative, then the process issued must be held to be rightly quashed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. If the answer is in the negative, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was in error in quashing the order of issue of process. 4. Before I turn to the contents of the complaint, the verification statement of the complainant and the documents produced by the complainant on record, I must state that the learned Additional Sessions Judge definitely appears to have travesed beyond the scope of the revisional jurisdiction while coming to the conclusion that the order of issue of process in the present case is not proper. It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has come to a conclusion on the basis of the reading of the complaint and the documents that are produced that it is a case of a civil nature and not of the offence falling within the purview of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. This of course is permissible. It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has come to a conclusion on the basis of the reading of the complaint and the documents that are produced that it is a case of a civil nature and not of the offence falling within the purview of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. This of course is permissible. The learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have decided the case only on the basis as to whether the complaint and the verification statement made with it makes out the case of an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code or not. No doubt, he could have also read the documents which were produced by the complainant. If the said papers disclosed that no offence under Section 420 can be said to have been made out at all, then no doubt he could have sitting in revision also set aside order of issue of process. 5. On behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, reliance was tried to be placed on the Rulings reported in Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha Ors.2 Triloksingh and others v. Satya Deo Tripathi3, to contend that where the disputes raised by the person was of a purely of civil nature even assuming the facts stated by him to be substantially correct, the process ought not to have been issued and to prevent the abuse of process of any Court, the High Court could interfere with the order of issue of process. All these cases which have been relied upon are based on Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code which empowers the High Court with the exercise of its inherent powers. It is not necessary to emphasize that powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are only exercisable by the High Court and not Sessions Court, therefore, Sessions Court obviously cannot resort to Section 482 and interfere with the order of issue of process merely because the Sessions Court comes to a conclusion that to prevent the abuse of process of law it is necessary to interfere with the order of issue of process the High Court, no doubt if it comes to such a conclusion is empowered to do so. The Sessions Court must consider the contents of the complaint and the verification statement and the documents produced by the complainant and try to find out whether a primafacie case of the offence is made out or not. The further appreciation about the said material produced before the Court is not permissible at the stage of the issue of process. In the present case, the complainant in his complaint have very clearly stated that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 right from the beginning had their intention to cheat the complainant and that is clarified from the notice replies. He has also stated that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had given false promises and had dishonestly with the intention to cheat the complainant had induced him to pay the amount of Rs. 1,001/- on a representation that he would be given the Block. The said statement definitely shows that the complainant has contended that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had entertained the dishonest intention right from the beginning and on the basis of the false promises had induced the complainant to part with Rs. 1001/-. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has tried to consider as to whether the said statement made in the complaint could be considered as correct or not in the light of the fact that in the notice given by the complainant he had not stated that the amount of Rs. 1001/- was paid. No doubt in the notice the complainant did not specifically state what was the amount paid but there is definitely statement that an advance was given and that he was prepared to give the balance amount. So it is not correct to say that nothing of the amount was actually stated in the notice and, therefore, the statement in the complaint that Rs. 1001/- was paid is clearly an afterthought so as to concludes at this stage that it is a false allegation. The contents of the complaint read together with the verification statement and documents produced on record by that complainant, definitely makes out a prima facie case of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was right in issuing process and sitting in revision, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no power to interfere with the said order after appreciating the material on record. 6. On behalf of Respondents Nos. 6. On behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 it is also tried to be contended that in the complaint the date on which the said transaction is alleged to have taken place between the complainant and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is stated to be 24-8-1986 while in the verification statement it is stated as 24-8-1985, and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that there was some doubt in respect of the transaction itself. 7. On carefully perusing the complaint and the verification statement it is clear that it appears that initially in the complaint as well as the verification statement dated 24-8-1986 was mentioned and the same was corrected to as 24-8-1985. It also appears that the correction made in the complaint is made in such a way that one may misread to as 1986. But if one looks it more carefully it is clear that it is corrected from 1986 to 1985 and therefore, there is in fact no discrepancy in respect of the said date in the complaint and the verification statement. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has given much stress on the said discrepancy which in fact is not there at all. Under these circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge must be held to have erred in interfering with the order of issue of process sitting in revision. 8. It was tried to be contended before me that in the present matter, even this Court can exercise powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and quash the proceedings to prevent the abuse of process of law. It was contended that it is a matter of civil litigation and the parties must take recourse to Civil Court. Now first of all this is a revision preferred by the complainant against the order passed by the learned Additional Session is Judge, sitting in revision. In this matter, therefore, it would be proper for this court to pass an order under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in favour of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and quash the proceedings. The complainant has stated in the complaint that the said transaction between the complainant and the accused No. 2 took place in the presence of witnesses. The names of the witnesses are also stated in the complain. 1 and 2 and quash the proceedings. The complainant has stated in the complaint that the said transaction between the complainant and the accused No. 2 took place in the presence of witnesses. The names of the witnesses are also stated in the complain. The complainant cannot be denied an opportunity to lead the said evidence particularly when it appears that the contention of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is that no transaction of sale at all was concluded. Hence, it is not necessary at this stage and in this revision application to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, the revision petition will have to be allowed and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge quashing the order of issue of process will have to be set aside and the order of issue of process passed by the. Trial Court will have to be restored. Order accordingly. Rule made absolute. 1. AIR 1978 SC 47 . 2. A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 301. 3. A.I.R. 1979 SC 850.