Judgment Pradip Kumar Biswas, J. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned counsel appearing for the State/opposite party are present. Heard both of them at length. This is an application under sections 397 and 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed at the instance of Lakshmikanta Ghosh seeking to set aside the order dated 21-2-1997 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barasat in connection with G.R. No. 868 of 1979 (arising out of Barasat P.S. Case No. 11 dated 3-5-1979 under section 364 of I.P.C.). 2. The short facts leading to the filing of this revisional application are us under:- One Jay Krishna Ghosh, since deceased, father of the present petitioner lodged an information with Barasat Police Station alleging commission of an offence under section 364 of I.P.C. and on receipt of the aforesaid complaint a case was registered with Barasat Police Station being Barasat P.S. Case No. 11 dated 3-5-1979 under section 364 of I.P.C. Police on completion of investigation submitted a final report un 11-5-1981 being F.R.T. No. 245 dated 11-5-1981. Having received the aforesaid information that one F.R.T. has been submitted by the police, the de facto complainant filed a 'Naraji Petition' before the learned Magistrate on 7-2-1983. The aforesaid 'Naraji Petition' was taken up for hearing by the learned Magistrate on 29-11-1985 and the learned Magistrate on that date gone through the case diary and the connected papers/documents was very much satisfied that there was a strong prima facie case against the accused persons and as such he refused to accept the final report and issued process against the accused persons and eventually warrant of arrest was issued against the accused persons and date was fixed on 3.2.1986 for service return, appearance and order. Subsequently, by an order dated 7.1.97 the learned Magistrate was pleased to observe that since there was some irregularities in connection with the old case a thorough hearing was necessary and with such observation the learned Magistrate recalled the process pending against the accused persons and also directed the de facto complainant to appear on 21-2-97 and ultimately by order dated 21-2-97 the learned Magistrate filed the case due to the non-appearance of the de facto complainant of this case. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the present application has been filed by the son of the aforesaid de facto complainant who died in the meantime and it has been pointed out by him that since after the death of his father he is vitally interested in the result of this case as Judisthir, his youngest son was kidnapped in this case and could not be traced out till date, he has therefore drawn the attention of this court with regard to the irregularities and illegalities in the subsequent orders dated 7.1.97 and 21.2.97 and according to him the orders mentioned above are all untenable in law in the facts and circumstances of this case. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned counsel appearing for the State. The learned counsel appearing for the State at the very outset has drawn my attention to the fact that the present petitioner being not the de facto complainant of this case is not the proper person to file this application before this forum. But I am afraid that I cannot agree with such contention of the learned counsel appearing for the State inasmuch as although the aforesaid criminal case was initiated by the father of this petitioner as de facto complainant and upon perusal of the materials, the learned court below found sufficient materials to proceed against the accused petitioner of the concerned case under section 364 of I.P.C. and necessary order was passed by him to proceed in connection with this case, yet, the impugned orders passed on 7-1-97 and 21-2-97 by the court below by way of reviewing its own order without proper justification was absolutely untenable in law inasmuch as the learned Magistrate on the available materials, could have proceeded with this case, without abruptly recording an order for filing of this case, when surrounding circumstances and materials available on record were very much in favour of continuation of the present proceeding. Moreover, this being a criminal case, instituted by the State machinery, carriage of the aforesaid proceeding upto its final stage now solely rests upon the State and the status of the de facto complainant at that stage, would be that of a witness only. 4. Moreover, this being a criminal case, instituted by the State machinery, carriage of the aforesaid proceeding upto its final stage now solely rests upon the State and the status of the de facto complainant at that stage, would be that of a witness only. 4. So, for further proceeding with this case the appearance of the de facto complainant was not at all necessary at that stage when the case should have been committed before the court of sessions by the learned court, as the learned court below had already found that there were sufficient materials to proceed against the accused persons of this case from the perusal of the case diary and other available materials. That being the position, I find that the subsequent orders, passed by the learned court below on 7.1.97 and 21.2.97 were made without due application of mind and as such these orders were untenable in law and as such should be set aside and accordingly, I set aside those orders and direct the concerned court to issue processes against the concerned accused persons for their appearance and on their appearance utmost endeavour will be made by the concerned court for commitment of the case to the court of sessions in accordance with the law without further delay. 5. With the aforesaid observation, the present revisional application stands disposed of. If an urgent xerox certified copy of this order, is applied for, the same be made available to the parties within shortest possible time. Revisional application disposed of with observation.