JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. Today again, On call none appeared on behalf of the Petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. On 29.10.2010 also none appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. However, the case was adjourned for the day with an indication that no further adjournment shall be granted. While adjourning the case, it was noticed that in this case, interim order of stay was continuing since 07.04.2009. 2. The sole Petitioner, who is ex-husband of Opp. Party No. 2, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 10.11.2006 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Purnia in Cr. Rev. No. 19 of 2006/18 of 2006. By the said order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has allowed the revision petition, which was preferred against the order dated 13.9.2005 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Purnia rejecting the complaint case No. 167 of 2003 under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that earlier on the basis of fardbeyan of Opp. Party No. 2, an F.I.R., vide Kasba P.S. Case No. 36 of 1999 was registered for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. However, after investigation, final form was submitted by the police. It was found during the investigation that in the year 1996 itself, Opp. Party No. 2 was married with the Petitioner and thereafter divorce had taken place. It further appears that on earlier occasion also several cases were filed by Opp. Party No. 2 against the Petitioner. The present case was initiated on the basis of protest-cum- complaint petition. In the present complaint, learned Magistrate conducted enquiry in detail and thereafter learned Magistrate by a detailed order has rejected the complaint petition. 3. Aggrieved with the order of rejection of complaint petition, Opp. Party No. 2 filed a revision vide Cr. Revision No. 19 of 2006/18 of 2006. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Purnia vide its order dated 10.11.2006 allowed the revision petition and directed the court below to issue summon against Opp. Party No. 2 (Petitioner herein) for facing trial. 4. I have perused the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Purnia as well as the order passed by learned Magistrate rejecting the complaint petition. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Purnia vide its order dated 10.11.2006 allowed the revision petition and directed the court below to issue summon against Opp. Party No. 2 (Petitioner herein) for facing trial. 4. I have perused the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Purnia as well as the order passed by learned Magistrate rejecting the complaint petition. The Court is of the opinion that while allowing the revision petition, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I was not at all required to direct the learned Magistrate to issue process. Meaning thereby that the learned Sessions Judge has virtually directed the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence, which is not permissible in the eye of law. 5. In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for interference with the impugned order i.e. order of the learned revisional court. 6. Accordingly, the order dated 10.11.2006 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Purnia in Cr. Revision No. 19 of 2006/18 of 2006 is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed.