JUDGMENT 1. - This Cr. Misc. Petition invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court has been filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. whereby revisional order dated 11.7.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, Camp Suratgarh, in Cr. Revision No. 64/95 resulting in dismissal of the revision petition has been challenged. 2. For the purpose of disposal of this petition, in short, it may be narrated that non-petitioner Harchand Singh lodged a criminal complaint for alleged offences under Sections 365,148,14 192 and 220, IPC as well as under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against the present petitioner Rajendra Singh who was then posted as officer- in-charge of the Police Station, Vijay Nagar and seven other co-accused persons named in the complaint who are not before this Court. This complaint, in exercise of power vesting under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. was forwarded by the- learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh for registration and investigation of a case and, accordingly, it was on 1.5.1993 that FIR No. 139/ 93 for the aforesaid offences punishable under the various sections of the Indian Penal Code as well as Arms Act was registered and investigation was started. 3. After investigation, a final report (un-occurred) was filed before the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh with a request to permit filing of a criminal complaint under Section 182, IPC for lodging a false complaint resulting in registration and investigation of an FIR, as above, against the first informant Harchand Singh. However, it was on 11.3.1994 that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after hearing the Counsel for the non-petitioner Harchand Singh, sustained the objection raised on his behalf against acceptance of final report and vide this order dated 11.3.1994 itself, proceeded to take cognizance of offences under Sections 147, 365 and 220, IPC against the accused-petitioner while cognizance of offences under Sections 147 and 365, IPC was taken against the co-accused persons who have not challenged this order. Being aggrieved, non-petitioner Harchand Singh preferred criminal revision before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, Camp Suratgarh and the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his impugned order dated 11.7.1995, in absence of the non-petitioner Harchand Singh as well as his Counsel, dismissed the revision petition on the ground that the impugned order dated 11.3.1994, impugned in the revision petition itself, was an interim order and, accordingly, no revision there against under Sub-section (2) of Section 397, Cr.P.C. could lie and that so far as the plea of necessity of prior sanction for prosecution of the petitioner, who was the police officer and alleged to have been discharging his functions in his official capacity, could be raised before the learned trial Magistrate at any appropriate stage. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has come up with this petition, as above. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as non-petitioner No. 2 and so also the learned PP and also perused and considered the legality of the impugned order. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, while relying on the D.B. decision of this Court rendered in Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur v. Dashrath Singh, 1996 RCC 592 , submits that in a criminal reference, on the question whether an order taking cognizance is an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2), Cr.P.C. or is a final order, it has been answered holding that the order of taking cognizance does not amount to an interlocutory order and, instead, it is a final order for the purpose of Sub-section (2) of Section 397, Cr.P.C. and hence criminal revision would lie there against and, accordingly, his submission is that the Revisional Court, while dismissing the revision petition vide impugned order, committed an illegality warranting quashing of the impugned order. 7. However, the learned Counsel for the complainant-non-petitioner No. 2, relying on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, 1992 Cr. 7. However, the learned Counsel for the complainant-non-petitioner No. 2, relying on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, 1992 Cr. L.R. (SC) 170=1 (1992) CCR 316 (SC) , contends that the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is untenable since the order of taking cognizance which could be challenged on the ground of illegality or jurisdiction at any stage before the trial Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences itself and, in view of these circumstances, there is no warrant for preferring any criminal revision there against and hence the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality warranting its being quashed. 8. However, on going through the Division Bench decision rendered in the case of Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (supra) wherein, while considering the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court rendered in K.M. Mathew (supra), while distinguishing the same, it has been clearly held that though the order of taking cognizance is an intermediary order but positively not an interlocutory order and against such an order a revision petition is maintainable under Section 397(2), Cr.P.C. The reference so made was answered accordingly and, in view of this position, there being no decision of the Apex Court contrary to the same, without elaborating the facts with a view to avoid prejudice to the rights of the parties, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is sustained that the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed an illegality vide impugned order resulting in dismissal of the revision on the ground that the order impugned in the revision petition passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate on 11.3.1994 was an interlocutory order for the purpose of a revision under Section 397(2), Cr.P.C. and the same is liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, since the petition succeeds on this legal point warranting remanding of this case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for a decision afresh and, accordingly, other points including necessity of sanction are left untouched so as to be raised before the learned Sessions Judge. 10. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, this Misc. Petition succeeds and, consequently, the impugned order dated 11.7.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, Camp Suratgrah is hereby set aside and the case is remitted to the same Court for disposal of the criminal revision on merit. 10. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, this Misc. Petition succeeds and, consequently, the impugned order dated 11.7.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, Camp Suratgrah is hereby set aside and the case is remitted to the same Court for disposal of the criminal revision on merit. The parties represented before this Court are hereby informed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar on 18.2.1999, Since this matter is pretty old, it is expected of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to dispose of the revision petition after affording opportunity of being heard to all the parties concerned at the earliest. 11. This petition alongwith stay petition is disposed of accordingly. 12. Let record of the lower Court be returned immediately alongwith copy of this order.Petition disposed of. *******