JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed against the order of cognizance dated 28.03.2007, passed by the learned Magistrate and order dated 03.01.2009 passed by the learned revisional court. 2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned revisional court had primarily decided the revision petition on the ground that the same is not maintainable, after relying upon the case of Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in 2004(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 765 : (2004) 13 SCC 324 , holding that an order of cognizance is an interlocutory order and, therefore, the revision does not lie. 3. It may be noted that the view taken by the learned revisional court that an order of cognizance is an interlocutor order, is not correct. Suffice, it to say that the issue is now well-settled in the case of Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur v. Dashrath Singh, reported in 1996(3) RLW 613 , wherein a reference of this very question was answered by a Division Bench of this Court. Moreover subsequently, the High Court in the case of Tajji v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2007(2) WLC 241 , has also considered the very question and held that an order of cognizance is not an interlocutory order. 4. So far as the case of Subramanium Sethuraman (supra) is concerned, it was based on the cases of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, 2004(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 788 : (2004) 7 SCC 338 . Controversy involved in those cases was in respect of powers of the Magistrate to reconsider the order of issuance of process on an application, filed by the accused subsequently. Precisely speaking, the case of Adalat Prasad (supra) was considering the correctness of the principle, as laid down in the case of K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, (1992) 1 SCC 217 and the same was over-ruled. It was in the light of the question involved in K.M. Mathew (supra) that the cases of Adalat Prasad (supra) and Subramanium Sethuraman (supra) had been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. It was in the light of the question involved in K.M. Mathew (supra) that the cases of Adalat Prasad (supra) and Subramanium Sethuraman (supra) had been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. The issue with regard to the nature of order of cognizance has been set at rest by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (supra) after thoroughly considering the relevant judgments of the Apex Court, including that of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1980 SC 962 , etc. Lately, another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Ibrahim v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2326/2008 ), had also reiterated the aforesaid view, while passing the order dated 28.01.2009. Therefore, I am of the considered view that an order of cognizance is not an interlocutory order. 6. Consequently, this petition deserves to be allowed and the order dated 03.01.2009 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned revisional court to decide the same afresh, in accordance to law.Petition allowed. *******