S. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been filed against the Judgment and order slated 22. 6. 1994 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Case No. 228 of 1994 State v. Ramesh Chandra and others under Section 498-A I. P. C. Police Station Chhatta, District Agra, by which he has summoned the applicants under Section 498-A I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE main question which arises in this case is whether a criminal revision is maintainable against this summoning order, which according to the decision of the Court in the case of Kailash Choudhari and others v. State of U. P. and another, is in the shape of an interlocutory order and no revision is maintainable against such an interlocutory order. In the decision after analysing; the entire case law and the provisions of Section 204 Cr. P. C. this Court has held that the order issuing process under Section 204 Cr. P. C. is an interim order and not a judgment and that order can be varied, rescinded or recalled by the Magistrate and the proceedings dropped if a complaint on the very face of it, does not disclose any offence against the accused. Therefore, Section 397 (2) Cr. P. C. would create express bar to interfere in revision against an interlocutory order. The accused must be relegated to his remedy only under Section 204 Cr. P. C. to approach the Magistrate and satisfy him that the process in the case ought not to have been issued and if the Magistrate is so satisfied he may recall the order issuing the process under Section 204 and dismiss the complaint under Section 203 Cr. P. C. ( 3 ) IN view of this judicial dictum of this Court this revision petition is not maintainable against this impugned order. However, the applicant can approach the Magistrate concerned and satisfy him by moving an application in this regard that the processes in the case ought not to have been issued and if the Magistrate is so satisfied he may recall the order issuing the process under Section 204 Cr. P. C. and dismiss the complaint under 5 Section 203 Cr. P. C. Needless to say that in case the applicants adopt this procedure the Magistrate concerned shall dispose of that plea of the applicants expeditiously. P. C. and dismiss the complaint under 5 Section 203 Cr. P. C. Needless to say that in case the applicants adopt this procedure the Magistrate concerned shall dispose of that plea of the applicants expeditiously. ( 4 ) IT is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the applicants that on account of ex-parte stay order granted on 24. 8. 1994 the proceedings before the Magistrate were ordered to be stayed and as such he did not make appearance in the Court, but later on this ex-parte stay order was not extended for non-appearance and as such the Court concerned had issued non-bailable warrants against the applicants comprising of all the members of their family including the women folk, who have nothing to do with this matter. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the applicants he apprehends that in case they surrender before the Court they will be taken into custody and sent to jail. Let the applicants move for cancellation of their non-bailable warrants or for releasing them on bail in accordance with law and the Court concerned shall take into account the submissions made by the applicants in this regard and shall dispose of that application immediately and if they are found entitled for bail, they should be ordered to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the Magistrate may deem fit and proper. With these observations, the revision petition stands finally disposed off. Let a copy of this order be given Dasti to the learned Counsel of the applicants within 48 hours on payment of usual charges as per rules. A copy of this order be also sent to the Court concerned for information and compliance. Revision dismissed. .