ORDER : 1. This Criminal Revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Code hereafter) has been presented by complainant/applicant for impugning order dated 29-8-2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Revision No. 658/07 setting aside the order dated 21-7-2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore directing issuance of process to respondents under section 204 of the Code taking cognizance against them of the offence punishable under section 420, Indian Penal Code and registering the private complaint as Criminal Case No. 2925 of 2007. The learned Sessions Judge also quashed the complaint. 2. The applicant couching his private complaint against the respondents to attribute commission of several offences, presented it before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore and sought his indulgence to accordingly proceed against them. After the presentation of the complaint the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, recorded the statement of the complainant and witness Sanjay under section 200 of the Code and directed police investigation under section 202 thereof. On the receipt of the report of Police the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class considered it along with above statements and vide dated 21-7-2007 ordered for issuance of arrest warrants against the accused. The accused/respondents before the execution of the above order called it in question through a Criminal Revision in the Court of Session, who allowing it passed the order impugned as detailed at the outset. Hence the present Revision at the instance of the complainant. 3. At the motion hearing stage, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, for final disposal of this Revision petition. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have reached the conclusion that the impugned order is not sustainable for the reasons as mentioned below. 4. It is useful to quote here section 204 of the Code. It reads as under:- “204. Issue of Process: (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceedings, and the case appears to be: (a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused. (b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction. (b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction. (2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed. (3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant issued under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint. (4) When by any law for the time being in force any process-fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint. (5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of section 87.” 5. The stage of section 204 of the Code is envisaged obviously after the Magistrate crosses over the stage of section 203 of the Code which reads as follows:- “203. Dismissal of complaint - If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing.” 6. Looking to the above provisions a party desirous of challenging the order of its summoning passed under section 204 can only challenge it within the four corners of section 204 of the Code and is precluded from inviting the Revisional Criminal Court to exercise the jurisdiction which the Court below ought to have exercised under the provisions of section 203 of the Code. The challenge in a Revision against order under section 204 of the Code has got to be confined to the violations of procedure. To be explicit if the Court issuing the process goes contrary to the matters of procedure mentioned therein that can be considered and appropriate order in that regard can be passed by the Revisional Court without going to the question of insufficiency of the ground for proceeding by the Magistrate. To be explicit if the Court issuing the process goes contrary to the matters of procedure mentioned therein that can be considered and appropriate order in that regard can be passed by the Revisional Court without going to the question of insufficiency of the ground for proceeding by the Magistrate. An aggrieved party cannot call into question as was called in the case at hand the failure of the Magistrate to dismiss the complaint under section 203 of the Code when the Magistrate has crossed over to the stage of issuance of process under the provisions of section 204 of the Code. 7. The above proposition of law finds full support from the following observations of the Apex Court vide Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal and Others, 2004 (4) MPLJ (SC) 1:- “(13) Section 200 contemplates a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint to examine the complaint and examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present if any. If on such examination of the complaint and the witnesses, if any, the Magistrate if he does not want to postpone the issuance of process has to dismiss the complaint under section 203 if he comes to the conclusion that the complaint, the statement of the complainant and the witnesses has not made out sufficient ground for proceeding. Per contra if he is satisfied that there is no need for further inquiry and the complaint, the evidence adduced at that stage has materials to proceed, he can proceed to issue process under section 204 of the Code. (14) Section 202 contemplates postponement of issue of process: It provides that if the Magistrate on receipt of a complaint if he thinks fit, to postpone the issuance of process against the accused and desires further inquiry into the case either by himself or directs an investigation to be made by a Police Officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may do so. In that process if he thinks it fit he may even take evidence of witnesses on oath, and after such investigation, inquiry and the report of the Police if sought for by the Magistrate and if he finds no sufficient ground for proceeding he can dismiss the complaint by recording briefly the reasons for doing so as contemplated under section 203 of the Code. (15) But after taking cognizance of the complaint and examining the complaint and the witnesses if he is satisfied that there is sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint he can issue process by way of summons under section 204 of the Code. Therefore, what is necessary or a condition precedent for issuing process under section 203 is the satisfaction of the Magistrate either by examination of the complaint and the witnesses or by the inquiry contemplated under section 202 that there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint hence issue the process under section 204 of the Code. In none of these stages the Code has provided for hearing the summoned accused, for obvious reasons because this is only a preliminary stage and the stage of hearing of the accused would only arise at a subsequent stage provided for in the latter provision in the Code. It is true as held by this Court in Mathew's case before issuance of summons the Magistrate should be satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint but that satisfaction is to be arrived at by the inquiry conducted by him as contemplated under sections 200 and 202, and the only stage of dismissal of the complaint arises under section 203 of the Code at which stage the accused has no role to play, therefore, the question of the accused on receipt of summons approaching the Court and making an application for dismissal of the complaint under section 203 of the Code for a reconsideration of the material available on record is impermissible because by then section 203 is already over and the Magistrate has proceeded further to section 204 stage. (16) It is true that if a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, issues process without there being any allegation against the accused or any material implicating the accused or in contravention of provision of sections 200 and 202, the order of the Magistrate may be vitiated, but then the relief an aggrieved accused can obtain at that stage is not by invoking section 203 of the Code because the Criminal Procedure Code does not contemplate a review of an order. Hence in the absence of any review power or inherent power with the subordinate Criminal Courts, the remedy lies in invoking section 482 of Code.” 8. In view of the above the learned Sessions Judge while passed the impugned order, he clearly exceeded the limits of his jurisdiction looking to the nature of the order of Magistrate challenged before him. He had no jurisdiction in the circumstances in exercise of revisional jurisdiction to hold that cognizance by the Magistrate against the accused/respondents of the offence punishable under Section 420, Indian Penal Code was for without any sufficient ground. On that basis his direction for dismissal of complaint and cancellation of process also clearly suffers from jurisdictional error. Revision under section 397 of the Code was not competent in the matter. The remedy in the matter lay only by way of a petition under section 482 of the Code. This finds further support from Subramanium Sethuraman vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2005 (1) MPLJ (SC) 260, wherein vide Para 19 it is held as under:- “In Adalat Prasad's case we have held that for an aggrieved person the only course available to challenge the issuance of process under section 204 of the Code is by way of a petition under section 482 of the Code.” 9. Sequel to the above discussion, the order impugned deserves to be set-aside. Accordingly this revision succeeds and the impugned order is set-aside restoring the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class under reference with all resultant consequences.