JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II),J. Heard Sri Abdul Rafe Siddiqui, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Sharad Dixit learned AGA for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been filed against order dated 29.4.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate by which application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned AGA submitted that impugned order is an interlocutory order and revision is not maintainable. 4. In the case of Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam, 2009(65) ACC, 607 Supreme Court and in the case of Ajay Dixit Vs. State of U.P. 2011(75)ACC,388 Allahabad. It has been held that order of summoning or refusing to summon witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code as it does decide any substantive right of litigating parties. Hence, no revision lies against such orders. 5. In view of this, the impugned order is an interlocutory order and revision is not maintainable. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.