ORDER The order under challenge is dated 16.11.2006 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 273 of 2005 by Sri Vijay Kumar Jain, learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-III, Begusarai, whereby and whereunder by setting aside the order dated 30.5.2005 passed in Complaint Case No. 1743(C) of 2004 by Sri S.P. Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai, he has allowed the revision and remitted the record to the lower court for needful. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party no. 2. 3. Opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint case on 28.10.2004 against the accused persons to the effect that they had fabricated the sale-deed dated 12.5.94 and 19.12.03 with respect to plot no. 641, khata no. 57, situated in mohalla Raghuber Nagar alias Bagha, which belonged to his daughter Prabha Kumari and filed a title suit no. 64/03 in the court of learned Munsif, 1st, Begusarai, in respect of declaration of his right, title interest and possession of the land. 4. In the said title suit the petitioner accused nos. 1 to 3 filed their written statement claiming 5 dhurs of land on the basis of purchase from petitioner no. 4 Ram Ratan Singh. During pendency of the said title suit a complaint wa5 filed by opposite party no. 2 Radha Kant Choudhary on behalf of his daughter Prabha Kumari. The complaint was made over in the court of Sri S.P Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Class, Begusarai, under Section 192 Cr.P.C. for disposal in accordance with law. 5 Learned Judicial Magistrate Sri Shukla postponed the issuance of process under Section 202 Cr.P.C. In course of holding of the enquiry the complainant examined three witnesses but the learned Magistrate was not satisfied regarding genuineness of the sale-deeds executed in favour of petitioner no. 2 by petitioner no. 4. Hence, he arrived at the conclusion that statement of principal landlord Dr. K.D.N. Agrawal, who is said to have sold the land on 26.9.1986 in favour of petitioner no. 4 and, therefore, he also thought it proper to examine four boundary witnesses besides the daughter Prabha Kumari of the complainant, who had purchased the land, were material witnesses and, therefore, in order to satisfy himself he issued summons against those witnesses so as to examine the facts and correctness of the allegation vide his order dated 30.5.2005. The opposite party no. The opposite party no. 2 being complainant preferred revision against the said order of the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Court by passing the impugned order has set aside the order of the learned Magistrate. 6. It has been submitted that from the facts and relevant orders of the learned Sessions Court it would be revealed that no opportunity to the complainant opposite party was given and the impugned order was hurriedly passed. Referring relevant provision of Section 311 Cr.P.C. it has been submitted that learned Magistrate was within his domain and competence to pass such order so as to satisfy himself in respect of correctness and genuineness of the document, in question, the very basis of prosecution even in the stage of enquiry so held by him under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel also submitted that such order passed by the learned Sessions Court definitely would come within the purview of interfering and setting aside an order passed by learned Magistrate as an inter-locutory order and no revision against such interlocutory order is maintainable. 7. Section 311 Cr.P.C. reads like this : Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.-Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and reexamine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. . 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that such stage so as to examine witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. normally comes in the trial stage and it was not proper stage when complainant opposite party was supposed to examine his witnesses, produced his documents so as to make out a case of prima fade having been made out and such meticulous and threadbare examination of the document would have been a point for due consideration in the trial court. 9. 9. But having gone through the relevant provision of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and interlocutory order of the learned Magistrate it would be revealed that the Magistrate had power to examine any of the witnesses for the ends of justice even in the trial stage of holding enquiry and there is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned Magistrate. The impugned order before the learned Sessions Court was definitely an interlocutory order, which should not have been inferfered with at this stage. 10. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order stands quashed and learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the complaint in accordance with law. The petition is allowed.