RAVINDRA SINGH, J. This application has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 6-8-2007 passed by the learned in-charge Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Criminal Misc. Revision No. Nil of 2007. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicant lodged an F. I. R. in Case Crime No. 563 of 2007 under Sections 302, 120-B I. P. C. P. S. Gambhirpur District Azamgarh in which Guddu, Faiz were named as accused but during investigation the name of accused Laique and Ashiq Ali also came to light, during the pendency of investigation, the I. O. of this case has moved an application in the Court of learned C. J. M. Azamgarh for issuing process under Section 82 Cr. P. C. , the same was allowed on 9- 7- 2007, the order dated 9-7-2007 has been challenged by the accused Ashiq Ali, Laique. Guddu and Faiz in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Azamgarh by way of filing Criminal Revision No. Nil of 2007, the same was put for the order before the learned Sessions Judge, Azamgarh on 11-7-2007 but on behalf of the revisionist, nobody was present to press the revision. The learned Sessions Judge postponed the matter for hearing on admission on 17-7-2007 and file was summoned. On 17-7-2007, an adjournment application was moved on behalf of the revisionist, the same was allowed and next date for admission was fixed on 24- 7-2007, again on 24-7-2007 an adjournment application on behalf of the revisionist was moved the same was allowed and for admission next date 6-8-2007 was fixed, on 6-8-2007 also adjournment application was moved, the same was allowed and for admission the next date 20-8-2007 was fixed. Being aggrieved from the orders dated 11-7-2007, 17-7-2007, 24-7-2007, 6-8-2007, present application has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to quash the order dated 6-8-2007 passed by the learned in-charge Sessions Judge and to direct the revisional Court to send back record forthwith to the Court of learned C. J. M. Azamgarh for issuing the process under Section 83 Cr. P. C. to ensure the appearance of the accused who are absconding. 3. Heard Sri Satya Narayan Singh and Sri S. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant, and Sri D. R. Chaudhary, learned Government Advocate for the State of U. P. 4. P. C. to ensure the appearance of the accused who are absconding. 3. Heard Sri Satya Narayan Singh and Sri S. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant, and Sri D. R. Chaudhary, learned Government Advocate for the State of U. P. 4. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the learned Sessions Judge, Azamgarh passed order dated 11-7-2007 by which the next date for hearing on admission was fixed on 17- 7-2007 and without any reason file of the lower Court was summoned whereas nobody was present to press the revision. The order dated 9-7-2007 passed by the learned C. J. M. Azamgarh, under Section 482 Cr. P. C. was not revisable order, no revision lies against that order, even then the learned Sessions Judge has summoned to file of the lower Court, due to summoning the file of the lower Court the order under Section 83 Cr. P. C. could not be passed. On account of the order dated 11-7-2007 the accused who were absconding in a murder case, got a relief without any reason, the order dated 11-7-2007 is not proper order. 5. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the In-charge Sessions Judge, Azamgarh allowed the application filed to stay the impugned order dated 9-7-2007 passed by the learned C. J. M. Azamgarh under Section 82 Cr. P. C. , vide order dated 17-7-2007, 24-7-2007 and 6-8-2007. The operation of order dated 9-7-2007 has been stayed without admitting revision, the revision is not maintainable because the order dated 9-7-2007 was not revisable, in such a situation, the learned In- charge Sessions Judge, Azamgarh stayed the operation of the order dated 9-7-2007 on some extraneous considerations, therefore, the order dated 17-7-2007 24-7-2007, and 6-8-2007 may be quashed. 6. Considering the above contention, the in charge Sessions Judge, Azamgarh who passed the order dated 17-7-2007, 24-7-2007 and 6-8-2007 was summoned by this Court on 22-8-2007 to explain as to why the order dated 9-7-2007 issuing process under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been stayed without admitting the revision. In pursuance of the order dated 22-8-2007 Sri R. S. Verma, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Azamgarh appeared today before this Court and submitted his written explanation. 7. P. C. has been stayed without admitting the revision. In pursuance of the order dated 22-8-2007 Sri R. S. Verma, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Azamgarh appeared today before this Court and submitted his written explanation. 7. The learned Government Advocate has submitted that the order dated 9-7-2007 passed by the learned C. J. M. Azamgarh issuing process under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has not been stayed by the learned in-charge Sessions Judge, Azamgarh but the learned Counsel for the applicant deliberately gave a different picture by way of putting incorrect facts before this Court that the application for staying the impugned order dated 9-7-2007 has been allowed by the learned in-charge Sessions Judge, Azamgarh on 17-7-2007, 24-7-2007 and 6-8-2007 whereas no such application was filed, the applications for adjournment were filed which have been allowed on 17-7-2007, 24-7-2007 and 6-8-2007. The learned Counsel for the applicant has misguided the Court by contending that without admitting the revision, learned in-charge Sessions Judge, Azamgarh has stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 9-7- 2007, therefore, considering the seriousness of the contention, this Court has summoned the in-charge Sessions Judge Azamgarh to explain as to why the order dated 9-7-2007 issuing process under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been stayed without admitting the revision. Sri R. S. Verma, then in-charge Sessions Judge, Azamgarh filed an explanation mentioning therein that the operation of the order dated 9-7-2007 has not been stayed and adjournment applications were allowed, which shows that a senior Judicial Officer has been unnecessarily harassed and his Court work has been suffered, only on account of misrepresentation of the facts made by the learned Counsel for the applicant. There is no illegality in the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge and in-charge Sessions Judge, Azamgarh. This application is misconceived, which may be dismissed with cost. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, learned Government Advocate and from the perusal of the record including the explanation given by Sri R. S. Verma, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, it appears that in the present case. This application is misconceived, which may be dismissed with cost. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, learned Government Advocate and from the perusal of the record including the explanation given by Sri R. S. Verma, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, it appears that in the present case. Criminal Revision filed by Ashiq Ali and three others has been dismissed on 5-9-2007 by the learned Sessions Judge, Azamgarh but, it was not proper on the part of the learned Sessions Judge, Azamgarh to summon the lower Court record on 11- 7-2007 whereas nobody was present to press the revision and the order dated 9-7-2007 passed by the learned C. J. M. Azamgarh issuing the process under Section 482 Cr. P. C. was not revisable. It appears that file of the lower Court was summoned in a routine manner, which is not a good practice because such order summoning the lower Court file/record be not passed, if the order under challenge in revision, is not revisable. 9. So far as the second contention made by the learned Counsel for the applicant in respect of the orders dated 17-7-2007, 24-7- 2007 and 6-8-2007 is concerned by which the matter was adjourned and the adjournment applications were allowed. This is most unfortunate that the learned Counsel for the applicant has given a different picture, in respect of the orders dated 17-7-2007, 24-7-2007 and 6-8- 2007 by contending that the learned in-charge Sessions Judge, Azamgarh has allowed the application for staying the impugned order dated 9-7-2007 without admitting the criminal revision, due to misrepresentation of incorrect fact, the learned in-charge Sessions Judge, Azamgarh has been summoned to appear before this Court vide order 22-8-2007 in pursuance of that order, Sri R. S. Verma, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 2 Azamgarh appeared before this Court and submitted a written explanation that no application for staying the order dated 9-7-2007 was allowed but the applications for adjournment were allowed, which have been misinterpreted by the learned Counsel for the applicant before this Court. There is no illegality in the impugned orders dated 17-7-2007, 24-7-2006 and 6-8-2007 but the learned Counsels for the applicant have made a misrepresentation of the fact putting the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Azamgarh on harassment and due to his appearance before this Court his Court work has been suffered, in the light of this circumstances, the submission made by the learned Government Advocate for imposing cost on the applicant is having substance. 10. In view of the above discussion, the present application is misconceived, it is having no substance, therefore, it is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/- payable to Sri R. S. Verma, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Azamgarh. The cost shall be deposited in the Court of learned C. J. M. Azamgarh by the applicant Imran Ahmad within three months from today. In case it is not deposited within three months the District Magistrate Azamgarh is directed to realize the same as arrears of land revenue. The amount of cost shall be paid to Sri R. S. Verma, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Azamgarh as compensation, who has been harassed on account of misrepresentation of the fact made by the learned Counsel for the applicant. 11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned C. J. M. Azamgarh for compliance. Application dismissed. .