ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. By an order dated 8-8-2002 passed by a Magistrate the two appeJIants before us and another were summoned for offence under Section 209 IPC along with accused Jaswant Singh, Dharambir and Rajesh Kumar who had been summoned for offences under Sections 302/201/34 IPC. The order of the Magistrate was challenged in the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 633 of 2002 wherein various legal issues including the question of jurisdiction of the Magistrate to issue summons at the time of committal proceedings under Section 209 CrPC, were raised. One of the questions raised was that when the main offence is triable by the Court of Session, can such a power be exercised by the Magistrate. The High Court instead of examining the questions involved, by a cryptic order, has dismissed the revision petition by simply observing that "the judgment under challenge suffers from no infirmity, perversity, impropriety, illegality or jurisdictional error" . 3. In our view, the matter required deeper consideration. Without expressing any opinion on merits, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit Criminal Revision Petition No. 633 of 2002 for its fresh decision by the High Court hoping that the High Court would dispose of the criminal revision petition expeditiously and preferably within three months. 4. Since the stay granted by us of further proceedings before the trial court qua the petitioners would continue till the final decision of the criminal revision petition, in case delay in disposal of criminal revision takes place on account of these appellants, it would be open to the respondent to bring that factum to the notice of the High Court and seek for the said court appropriate directions. The parties shall appear before the Registrar General on 27-92004 so the directions for fixing date of hearing of the revision petition may be issued. 5. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is decided on the above terms. 6. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.