Honble DALELA, J. – This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 2.1.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate Class-1, Bilara in Cr. Case No. 1/96 under Section 500 I.P.C., where by he has taken cognizance against the accused- petitioners for the offence under section 500 I.P.C. (2). The order of taking cognizance and issuing the process is an inter-locutary order. It has ben held so in the case of Khet Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1). This has been held so by this court on the basis of the Supreme Court decision in K.M. Mathew vs. State of Kerala (2). The order of taking cognizance is an inter- locutory order passed behind the back of the accused. It is well settled in law that no revision lies against the inter-locutory orders. (3). The learned Magistrate has considered the material before him and passed the order of taking cognizance. The order of taking cognizance was exparte and passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the accused. petitioner. Therefore, the petitioners may appear before the learned Magistrate and show to that court that the alleged offence is not made out against them or that the order of taking cognizance is incompetent. The order of taking cognizance and issuing process will not be a bar to drop the proceedings, if the petitioners are able to show and convince the Magistrate that no case is made out against them. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on prima facie being satisfied, that the complaint and the evidence in support there of make an offence against them and this is not the stage to scrutinize whether there is any truth or otherwise in the allegations, because the cognizance has been taken on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint. The petitioners are, therefore, free to raise all the objections before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate will consider all those objections raised by the petitioners and if he is satisfied that taking of cognizance is incompetent then he may drop the proceedings. With these observations the petition deserves to be dismissed. (4). Accordingly, with the above observations the petition is dismissed.