JUDGMENT : Pradip Mohanty, J. - This criminal revision is directed against the Order Dated 30.11.2004 passed by Judge, Family Court in Criminal Proceeding Nos. 301 of 2000 rejecting an application filed by the Petitioner to recall the Order Dated 29.04.2004. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that an order was passed on 29.04.2004 in Criminal Proceeding Nos. 301 of 2000 directing the present Petitioner to pay differential amount of Rs. 1,000/- as per the orders of this Court so also the residue amount of Rs. 800/- In the said order, the Judge, Family Court also directed to continue the execution proceeding for payment of Rs. 1,800/- The Petitioner filed a petition on 23.06.2004 to recall the Order Dated 29.04.2004. The matter was heard and ultimately, the Judge, Family Court rejected the same on 30.11.2004 holding that there was no reason to recall the order. Against that order the Petitioner has preferred this revision. 3. Mr. Mohanty, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he had paid the arrear amount to the Opposite Party but the Learned Judge, Family Court without examining the matter properly and without considering the documents filed by the Petitioner mechanically rejected the petition. Therefore, it is a fit case to remit back the matter to the Trial Court for fresh hearing. 4. Mr. Das, Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that the Order Dated 29.04.2004 is an interlocutory order and a petition to recall the said order is not entertainable. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application. He further submitted that the impugned Order Dated 30.11.2004 is also an interlocutory order and no revision lies against such an order. 5. Perused the record. Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure speaks that the powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order. It has been settled in a number of cases by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would culminate in termination the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, had the recall application filed by the Petitioner been allowed by the Court, the proceeding would not have come to an end. Moreover, Criminal Court cannot recall or review its own order. In the present case, had the recall application filed by the Petitioner been allowed by the Court, the proceeding would not have come to an end. Moreover, Criminal Court cannot recall or review its own order. 6. In view of the above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the revision is dismissed. 7. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Allowed