S. K. JAIN, J. Malkhan Singh has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 1-8-2003 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2 in Sessions Trial No. 202 of 1997, State v. Hakim Singh and Ors. , whereby i the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application 73-Kha. 2. None appeared for the revisionist. Heard Sri V. B. Shivhare, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 to 5 and the learned AGA. 3. It appears that the revisionist is a co-accused in S. T. No. 202 of 1997 in case crime No. 197 of 1997, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 342 and 302, I. P. C. alongwith Hakim Singh, Ram Singh, Jag Bhan Singh and Sant Lal. 4. 73-Kha application was made on behalf of the revisionist and other co-accused of Sessions Trial No. 202 of 1997 with the averments that on 15-10-1997 an occurrence took place inside the house of the revisionist in which the brother of complainant of Sessions Trial No. 202 of 1997 was murdered. The brother of revisionist Jag Mohan also suffered injuries. Case Crime No. 197 of 1997 under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 504 and 506, I. P. C. against the complainant of S. T. No. 202 of 1997 and Dev Singh, Chandra Bhan Singh, Udai Bhan Singh, Sahab Singh and Rakesh Singh was also registered on the application of revisionist under Section 156 (3), Crp. C. In case Crime No. 197-A of 1997, the police submitted final reports which was accepted by the learned Magistrate. The revisionist made an application to recall the order by which final report was accepted but the same was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, revisionist filed a complaint case in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 1196 of 2003, Malkhan Singh v. Rakesh Singh, which is pending. It was therefore prayed by the revisionist through his application 75-Kha that the complaint case be summoned as it is a cross case of S. T. No. 202 of 1997 and the two cases be tried together. Another application 76-Kha was preferred by the revisionist for treating application 73-Kha under Sections 407 and 408, Cr. P. C. 5. It was therefore prayed by the revisionist through his application 75-Kha that the complaint case be summoned as it is a cross case of S. T. No. 202 of 1997 and the two cases be tried together. Another application 76-Kha was preferred by the revisionist for treating application 73-Kha under Sections 407 and 408, Cr. P. C. 5. Objections were filed to this application of the revisionist on the ground that in the cross case final report filed by the police has been accepted and in complaint case the complainant has not yet been examined and the application has been made to delay the disposal of S. T. No. 202 of 1997. The Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case unless the accused are committed to the Court of Sessions. 6. The learned Magistrate by a detailed order giving cogent reasons rejected the application 73-Kha and 74-Kha of the revisionist. 7. The revisionist filed an affidavit stating that his statement under Section 200, Cr. P. C. has been recorded in the complaint case. Counter-affidavit has been filed alongwith the copy of the order dated 1-3-2004, passed by the learned ACJM, Hamirpur, indicating that complaint Case No. 1196 of 2003 filed by the revisionist has already been dismissed. In the rejoinder affidavit it has been stated that the revision has been filed against the order of dismissal of complaint. 8. From the above facts it appears that the complaint case filed by the revisionist has been dismissed before the accused were summoned to face trial in that case and a revision has been filed against the order of dismissal. 9. The fate of S. T. No. 202 of 1997 cannot be left to the fate of complaint case filed by the revisionist which stands dismissed on date. In these circumstances, the Court below has not committed any illegality or irregularity, which may call for any interference by this Court in this revision. 10. The revision petition is rejected accordingly. Revision rejected. .