Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 16.12.1994 passed in Criminal Revision No. 386 of 1994 by the Sessions Judge, Madhubani, whereby the order dated 10.12.1993 of the Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance against opposite parties No.2 to 10 had been set aside. 2. There is chequered history of the case. The petitioner submitted a written report to the Officer-lncharge of Andhra Tharhi P.S. on 15.11.1992 alleging that on that day at about 11 AM. while she was taking out water from her well, opposite parties came to this place variously armed with deadly weapons and at the order of accused Deo Narain Choudhary i.e. opposite party No.2 two of the female accused Bachni Devi and Veena Devi snatched away the water pot from the informant and accused Deo Narayan Choudhary assaulted the informant with back portion of the spade as a result of which she fell down and at the order of Deo Narain Choudhary, other accused persons had lit fire on her and had taken away the ornaments and wearing apparels. She raised alarm as a result of which villagers came to the spot and the accused persons fled away. 3. On investigation police submitted final form holding that the case had been falsely instituted and there was also recommendation to the effect that the petitioner be prosecuted under Sections 188 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation itself the petitioner could smell foul play as the accused persons were hobnobbing with the Officer- Incharge and by way of filing protest petition she raised objection about the investigation before the S.D.J.M., Jhanjharpur. Ultimately when final form was submitted in Andhra Thari P.S. Case No. 140/92 and before such final form was being accepted on the protest petition enquiry was made by the S.D.J.M., and then congnizance was taken against the accused persons under different sections of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 10.12.1993. 4. On the same incident there was another complaint filed by O.P.No. 10 Chandra Kumar Choudhary making the petitioner and others as accused. The said complaint was sent to the Police for investigation. The complaint petition was registered as Andhra Thari P.S. Case No. 147/92. 4. On the same incident there was another complaint filed by O.P.No. 10 Chandra Kumar Choudhary making the petitioner and others as accused. The said complaint was sent to the Police for investigation. The complaint petition was registered as Andhra Thari P.S. Case No. 147/92. In this case also after investigation police submitted final form holding that the case was a false one and there was also a recommendation for lodging prosecution against the informant. A protest petition was filed against such final form and the S.D.J.M. after holding enquiry on the protest petition took cognizance against the petitioner and others under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. Against the cognizance being taken in both the cases criminal revisions were filed by the petitioner and also by O.P. No.10 Chandra Kumar Choudhary. Both these revisions were heard by the learned Sessions Judge and in the case filed by O.P.No.10 Chandra Kumar Choudhary the revision petition was rejected and the cognizance taken against the petitioner and others were upheld and they were as stated at the bar are facing trial. But the revision filed by opposite parties in respect of cognizance being taken against them the said revision petition has been allowed by the impugned order holding that when the case ended in a final form after full investigation by the Police and when the nature of the allegation reveals falsity of the criminal case the cognizance taken was bad. Thus it appears that the learned Sessions Judge in one case on the same materials had held that the cognizance is good while in the other case it was held that the cognizance was bad. Be it what it may the only point involved in this petition is that the Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition against the order of cognizance. Such entertaining of revision petition is without jurisdiction and hence the order of the Sessions Judge cannot be maintained. It is settled principle of law that cognizance is taken of the offence and not against the offenders and if summons have been issued on the basis of the cognizance the same cannot be challenged under the Revisional Jurisdiction under Sections 397/399 Cr. It is settled principle of law that cognizance is taken of the offence and not against the offenders and if summons have been issued on the basis of the cognizance the same cannot be challenged under the Revisional Jurisdiction under Sections 397/399 Cr. P.C. as it has already been established by the Apex Court in various judgments right from the case of Amarnath and on later decision that issuance of summon etc., are only interlocutory orders and there is no revision maintainable under Sections 397/399 Cr. P.C. 5. Thus the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge was not there in entertaining any of the revision petitions and any order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity in the eye of law. Thus the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions in Criminal Revision No. 386 of 1994 is hereby quashed being without jurisdiction and by such quashing the order of cognizance passed by the S.D.J.M., Jhanjharpur in Andhra Tharhi P.S. Case No. 140/92 remains in vogue.