JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the judgment dated April 30, 1990 of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar in Criminal Revision No. 46/86. 2. The facts of the case are that the non-petitioner-Manguram filed a complaint against the petitioner on 6.7.1977 in which it was given-out that he had deposited #2352; 10,000/- in the firm of the petitioners with a stipulation to take the said amount back for purchasing the tractor. It is noteworthy that neither any date of the deposit has been given nor any writing/receipt has been produced to show the said deposit. It was further stated in the complaint that he was searching for a tractor, but he could not found any such tractor to purchase, as such, he demanded his money back from the accused persons. As per the complaint, the accused persons avoided to return the amount and then denied to return the same telling that no such amount was deposited by him. 3. On filing of the said complaint, the learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code and the statements of the witnesses under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter, process was issued on 13.7.1977 summoning the accused-persons for the offence under Section 406 Indian Penal Code. Then, the statements of the witnesses at pre-charge stage were recorded. It continued till March 28, 1979. On this date, the Court fixed 11/5/ 1979 for hearing arguments about framing charges. Thereafter, the matter remained pending and the charge under Section 406 Indian Penal Code was framed against the petitioners on 17.8.1985. 4. Aggrieved against the said order, a revision petition was preferred by the petitioners which was heard & disposed of by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar. However, the revision was dismissed on April 30, 1990 on the preliminary ground that a revision petition against the order of framing charge was not maintainable. Hence, this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed. 5. The contention of Mr. Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the entire story about the deposit and the demand of the money is an imaginery one. He argued that in any case it is a matter of civil nature. Mr. Hence, this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed. 5. The contention of Mr. Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the entire story about the deposit and the demand of the money is an imaginery one. He argued that in any case it is a matter of civil nature. Mr. Mathur further submitted that the incident is of the year 1973, the complaint was filed in the year 1977 and now we are running in 1991, as such, the continuation of such criminal proceedings would amount an abuse of the process of the Court. Mr. Mathur further argued that the learned Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge committed an error on the face of the record when he dismissed the revision on the ground that it was not maintainable. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Naqvi learned Counsel for the complainant supported the order of the learned Magistrate, as well as. of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 7. After the Full Bench judgment of this Court, the legal position is now clear that the order of framing charge is a final order. Therefore, the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissing the revision on the ground that it was not maintainable is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 8. So far the other arguments are concerned, I am of the view that the matter should be examined by the Revisional Court. 9. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the order judgment dated April 30, 1990 of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar is hereby set-side. The case is sent back to his Court for deciding the revision on merits.Petition allowed. *******