Judgment : By this application applicant prays for quashing and setting aside order dated 27.11.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Bhandara in Criminal Revision Application No. 56 of 2007 wherein the revision application was allowed on 27.11.2007 by the impugned order which was passed in respect of Ex. 81 in Criminal Case No. 54 of 1997 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Pawani. 2] Heard submissions at the bar. It appears that case of the applicant herein is that the complaint was lodged regarding the accused no.1 Balakdas Shriram Khobragade who was husband of the applicant and who entered into second wedlock during the subsistence of first marriage with the applicant. In a complaint lodged under Sections 494, 199, 464, 465, 466 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against Balakdas Shriram Khobragade and second wife Kavita Balakdas Khobragade the complainant had prayed for issuance of summons to accused no.2 Kavita Balakdas Khobragade. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paoni by order dated 27.08.2007 after hearing the complaint as also the objection raised by the accused no.1 passed an order for issuance of summons to accused no.2 with a view to hear and decide the case on merits against her. The said order passed below Ex. 81 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 54 of 1997 on 27.08.2007 was challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara who after making the reference to ruling in Everest Advertising (P) Ltd. Vs. State Govt. of NCT Of Delhi and Others reported in 2007(6) Maharashtra Law Journal 49 observed that learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to recall the summons. Learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to allow the revision application while setting aside the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class below application Ex. 81. 3] It is the grievance of the learned Advocate for the applicant that ruling referred to by learned Additional Sessions Judge 1, Bhandara in Everest Advertising (P) Ltd. Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others reported in 2007(6) Maharashtra Law Journal 49 was not attracted at all in the facts and circumstances of the case because in the present case the application was moved only for issuance of summons to accused no.2 against whom also complaint was filed and pending and learned Judicial Magistrate First Class after hearing the parties before the Court was pleased to issue summons to accused no.2. Thus there was no question of recalling the summons on the ground that it was not previously issued. It thus appears from the order which was recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paoni in Misc. Criminal Case No. 54 of 1997 (below Ex. 81) that the complaint proceedings were pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and evidence of the complainant was not yet concluded, cross examination of some of the witnesses was not undertaken and on the ground that the case will be heard on merits; learned trial Court with a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings chose to issue summons against accused no.2. 4] Learned Advocate for the applicant therefore submitted that the ruling in Everest Advertising was wrongly applied by learned Additional Sessions Judge in the facts and circumstances of the present case particularly when there was no question of recalling the summons by the order which was passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Paoni. There was no any application for recalling the summons which was issued. 6] Learned Advocate for the respondents contended that respondent no.1 Balakdas Shriram Khobragade is also convicted in the case and his appeal is pending challenging the conviction as said Balakdas had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2008 before the Sessions Judge, Bhandara and the trial against the accused no.2 was separated. According to learned Advocate efforts were not made by the complainant to serve the accused no.2 in the separated trial. He therefore prayed that application be dismissed. 7] Heard the submissions of the learned Advocate. It does appear that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Paoni, before whom the application was moved by the complainant to issue summons against accused no.2 in the case for her appearance, before the Judicial Magistrate First Class was pleased to issue summons to accused no.2 on payment of process fee returnable on 14.09.2007. The said order was challenged by the accused Balakdas Shriram Khobragade although summons was not directed to be issued against him. It is apparent on the face of the record that ratio in Everest Advertising (P) Ltd. Vs. State Government of NCT Delhi and Others referred above was not attracted considering the orders sought to be impugned by accused no.1 in the case. It is apparent on the face of the record that ratio in Everest Advertising (P) Ltd. Vs. State Government of NCT Delhi and Others referred above was not attracted considering the orders sought to be impugned by accused no.1 in the case. There was nothing illegal, improper or incorrect in the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Paoni for issuing summons against accused no.2 considering the pending criminal case before the Court. Contention that Balakdas Khobragade is convicted by the learned trial Magistrate cannot be of any assistance for learned Advocate for the respondent. Another contention that no efforts were made by the complainant to serve accused no.2 also appear to be misconceived and improper, more so when accused no.1 in the case chose to challenge the order directing issuance of summons to accused no.2 by Criminal Revision No. 56 of 2007 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara. Criminal Revision was allowed on 27.11.2007. The order passed therein had to be questioned by the present applicant by means of this application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code pending since 28.02.2008. That being so no fault can be found with the complainant on the pretext that she did not made any efforts to serve second accused in the case. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Bhandara is primafacie unsustainable as it is wrong, improper and illegal. The same would be required to be set aside and the order which was passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class dated 27.08.2007 ought to be restored. The application is therefore allowed. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application 56 of 2007 dated 27.11.2007 is set aside. The order which was passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Paoni in Criminal Case No. 54 of 97 below application Ex. 81 dated 27.08.2007 for issuance of summons upon accused no.2 is restored. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Paoni is directed to proceed further in accordance with law. Application is allowed accordingly.