Judgment V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned advocate for the applicant. ( 2 ) THE applicant is seeking quashing of process issued against him under Section 406 of IPC. The said process has been issued against him in criminal Case No. 191 of 2002 which is pending before the Judicia magistrate F. C. Pimpri. The applicant preferred an application for recallinj of process before the Magistrate, however, the said application came to be rejected. ( 3 ) THE applicant is challenging the order dated 27th May, 2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate F. C. Pimpri whereby the process unde section 406 of IPC came to be issued against him in Criminal Case No. 191 of 2002. As observed earlier, the applicant had preferred an application fo recalling of process before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and others1, has observed that he did not have the power to recall the process and he rejected the application preferred by the applicant in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Adalat Prasad (supra) no fault can be found with the order of the learned Magistrate whereby he rejected the application for recall of process i. e Exhbit-12. ( 4 ) HOWEVER, in my opinion, the applicant has an efficacious alternate remedy i. e. of preferring a revision before the Sessions Court against the order of, the Magistrate issuing process. Hence, I expressed the view that it would be more appropriate that the applicant should prefer revision before the concerned Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate issuing process. ( 5 ) ON expressing thus opinion, the learned counsel advocate for the applicant pointed out a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and others (Supra ). The learned advocat has submitted that in the said decision, it is observed in Para 16 that in a case where process has been issued, in the absence of any review power or inherent power with the subordinate criminal Courts, the remedy lies in invoking Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. The learned advocat has submitted that in the said decision, it is observed in Para 16 that in a case where process has been issued, in the absence of any review power or inherent power with the subordinate criminal Courts, the remedy lies in invoking Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. Thus the learned advocate has submitted that in view of the observations of the Supreme Court, the applicant has rightly approached the High Court for relief as both the lower Courts i. e the Magistrate or Sessions Court cannot grant relief. ( 6 ) THE learned advocate has also placed reliance on another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of maharashtra and another2. The learned advocate has submitted that in the said decision, the Supreme Court has held that in a case where process is issued the only course available to the aggrieved party is to challenge the issuance of process by way of petition under Section 482 of the Criminal procedure Code. ( 7 ) I have carefully perused the said decisions. In the case of Adalat prasad, the question which came up for consideration before the Supreme court was whether the view of the Supreme Court in K. M. Mathew v. State of Kerala and another3, wherein it was held that if the Magistrate had issued process, he could also recall such an order was a correct view or not. Thus, the question which fell for consideration before the Supreme court in the case of Adalat Prasad was whether a Magistrate could recall process. It was the only question which fell for consideration. It is to be noted that it was the only question argued, deliberated and decided by the Supreme Court. While deciding the case of Adalat Prasad, the Supreme court was not considering the question whether a revision could be preferred against the order of Magistrate issuing process. In fact, in the case of Adalat Prasad, after the observations in Para 16 stated above, in para 18, the Supreme Court has observed thus:"18. In view of our above conclusion, it is not necessary for us to go into the question whether order issuing a process amounts to an interim order or not. In fact, in the case of Adalat Prasad, after the observations in Para 16 stated above, in para 18, the Supreme Court has observed thus:"18. In view of our above conclusion, it is not necessary for us to go into the question whether order issuing a process amounts to an interim order or not. "thus, in the case of Adalat Prasad, the Supreme Court has not decided the issue whether a revision against such an order is maintainable or not as the said issue was not raised. ( 8 ) AS far as the decision in the case of Subramaniam Sethuraman is concerned, the question which fell for consideration before the Supreme court was whether the decision in the case of Adalat Prasad would require reconsideration as in the case of Adalat Prasad the court proceeded on the basis that the case was a summons case but in reality it was a warrant case covered by Chapter XIX of the Criminal Procedure Code. That was the question, which arose for consideration. Against the issue for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the Magistrate could recall the order issuing process in a summons case as well as warrant case. The Supreme Court held that it would not make any difference whether a case was a summons case or a warrant case and in both the cases the Magistrate did not have the power to recall process. In the case of subramanium Sethuraman, the observations in the case of Adalat Prasad, have been quoted and it was held that the fact that it was a warrant case and K. M. Mathew pertained to summons case would not make the law laid down in Adalat Prasads case bad law. ( 9 ) THUS in both cases, the question which arose for consideration was whether the "magistrate" could recall process which was issued by him. The sole question which arose for consideration in the case of Adalat prasad was whether the view in the case of K. M. Mathew that the magistrate could recall process issued by him was correct or not. In the said case, the question did not arise for consideration whether a revision could be preferred before the Sessions Court against the order issuing process. Moreover, in Adalat Prasads case as is clear from Para 18, the said question is not gone into. In the said case, the question did not arise for consideration whether a revision could be preferred before the Sessions Court against the order issuing process. Moreover, in Adalat Prasads case as is clear from Para 18, the said question is not gone into. It is not the ratio of the judgment in Adalat prsads case that a revision against the order issuing process is not maintainable. It can be said to be the ratio decidendi of the judgment if the following requirement are met: (a) The issue involved must be directly and substantially in issue in the case. (b) The issue needs to be decided, and (c) There are reasons given in the judgment while deciding the issue. If the judgment in the case of Adalat Prasad is considered, it is seen that what was in issue was whether the "magistrate" could recall the order issuing process. The ratio of the judgment would have to be applied to cases wherein the Magistrate is called upon to recall process and the ratio would not apply to cases where the Sessions Court is called upon to recall process and the ratio would not apply to cases where the Sessions court is called upon to exercise its revisional jurisdiction in cases where process has been issued. The Supreme Court has observed in the case of Commissioner of Income tax v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. as under:". . . . . It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment of this court, divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be the complete law declared by this court. The judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the question which were before this court. A decision of this court takes its colour from the questions involved in the case in which it is rendered and while applying the decision to a later case, the courts must carefully try to ascertain the true principle laid down by the decision of this court and not to pick out words or sentences from the judgment, divorced from the context of the questions under consideration by this court to support their reasonings. In Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India, this Court cautioned: "it is not proper to regard a word, a clause or a sentence occurring in a judgment of the Supreme Court, divorced from its context as containing a full exposition of the law on a question when the question did not even fall to be answered in that judgment. " ( 10 ) IN the case of Adalat Prasad or Subramanium Sethuraman, the question did not arise for consideration as to whether a. revision can be preferred against the order of Magistrate issuing process. Hence, the one line in paragraph 16 of Adalat Prasad or even Subramaniaum Sethuraman cannot be divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treated as complete law declared on the subject that a revision against an order issuing process is not maintainable. It cannot be said to be the ratio of Adalat Prasad that a revision is not maintainable especially also keeping in mind the observations in paragraph 18 of the Adalat prasad. So also looking to the question under consideration in the case of subramanian Sethuraman, it cannot be said, to be the ratio in the said case that a revision against order issuing process is not maintainable. ( 11 ) IN the case of Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels ltd. Anr. , in relation to the powers of revision, the Supreme Court has observed that the interdict contained in Section 397 (2) of the code of criminal Procedure is that the powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order. Whether an order is interlocutory or not, cannot be decided by merely looking at the order or merely because the order was passed at an interlocutory stage. The Supreme Court laid down that the safe test is that if the contention of the Petitioner who moves the superior court in revision, as against the order under challenge is upheld, would the criminal proceedings as a whole culminate? If they would, then the order is not an interlocutory order inspite of the fact that it was passed during any interlocutory stage. If they would, then the order is not an interlocutory order inspite of the fact that it was passed during any interlocutory stage. In the present case, if the contention of the present applicant in respect of the order issuing process is upheld the proceedings in the said case would come to an end, hence, in the light of the above decision, the order issuing process cannot be said to be an interlocutory order even though it may have been passed at an interlocutory stage. ( 12 ) MOREOVER, it is pertinent to note that in the case of Rajendra Kumar sitraram Pande and others v. Uttam and Another, the main question before the Supreme Court was whether the order of Magistrate directing the issuance of process is an interlocutory order or not. The said question was directly in issue in the said case. The said issue was decided giving detailed reasons. The Supreme Court held after giving detailed reasonings that the order of Magistrate directing issuance of process is not an interlocutory order and the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 could be exercised against the same. In view of the above observations, it is clear that an aggrieved person against whom process has been issued, can prefer a revision against the order of the Magistrate issuing process. Thus, it is clear that the applicant can prefer a revision against the order issuing process. In view of the fact that the applicant has an efficacious alternate remedy of preferring revision against the order issuing process, I am of the view that it would be appropriate that the applicant prefers a revision before the concerned Sessions Court against the order issuing process against him. ( 13 ) LIBERTY is granted to the applicant to prefer the necessary revision before the concerned Sessions Court. ( 14 ) ON the necessary revision being preferred by the applicant before the concerned Sessions Court, the concerned Sessions Court shall dispose of the matter on merits after hearing the necessary parties. Criminal Application is disposed of.