JUDGMENT B.D. Rathi, J. 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. By invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code") calling in question the order dated 07-12-2012 passed by 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 242 of 2012. 3. Brief facts in narrow compass are that in para 17 of the impugned order, revisional Court has directed that revision is allowed and the impugned order of trial Court dated 21-04-2012 is set aside. Further, the case has been remanded back to the trial Court with a direction that, if necessary, further enquiry be made and after taking into consideration the observations made by revisional Court, appropriate order be passed for registration of complaint and for summoning non-applicants/accused persons and parties were directed to remain present before the trial Court on 20-12-2012. 4. The aforesaid criminal revision was preferred by respondent No. 1, challenging the order dated 21-04-2012 passed by JMFC, Gwalior whereby the private complaint filed by respondent No. 1 was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code in lack of production of sufficient evidence by the complainant. It was also found by the trial Court that nature of litigation is of civil and no case for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B and 506-B of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out. 5. Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court towards the provisions of Section 398 of the Code and submitted that when the order of dismissal of complaint under Section 203 of the Code was challenged before the Session Court in criminal revision therefore, after examination of that record, the session Court can pass the order for further enquiry only. Such type of order with regard to registration of complaint and summoning the accused persons cannot be passed, it is perverse and illegal, therefore, it is liable to be quashed. 6. Such type of order with regard to registration of complaint and summoning the accused persons cannot be passed, it is perverse and illegal, therefore, it is liable to be quashed. 6. Combating the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 1's learned counsel submitted that wrong interpretation of order passed by revisional Court has been made by the petitioner, in fact the revisional order is only remand order for further enquiry and order for registration of private complaint or summoning the accused was not passed, therefore, this petition would entail dismissal. 7. From perusal of order impugned order passed by revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 242 of 2012, it is clear that trial Court was directed to register the private complaint and summoning the accused persons. Order upto such extent is not permissible in view of the provisions of Section 398 of the Code which reads as under: Power to order inquiry. On examining any record under Section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 or sub-section (4) of section 204, or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged; Provided that no Court shall make any direction under this section for inquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made. 8. On bare perusal of this provision it is clear that the impugned order cannot be passed under Section 398 of the Code. The word "may direct" has been used by the legislation in this provision. It gives wide discretion to the Court to order further enquiry. Session Court has no power to take cognizance of the offence, assessed the offence and reach its own conclusion whether there is ground for proceeding with complaint or not and further to direct a magistrate with regard to registration of complaint on finding a prima facie case. 9. It gives wide discretion to the Court to order further enquiry. Session Court has no power to take cognizance of the offence, assessed the offence and reach its own conclusion whether there is ground for proceeding with complaint or not and further to direct a magistrate with regard to registration of complaint on finding a prima facie case. 9. Acting in furtherance to para 17 of the order passed by revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 242 of 2012, JMFC, Gwalior has taken the cognizance on 23-01-2013 and fixed the matter for arguments on registration and accordingly on 23-02-2013 private complaint was registered, therefore, the order passed by the revisional Court is perverse, illegal and against the provisions of law. The order dated 21-04-2012 passed by JMFC, Gwalior which was under challenge before the revisional Court has also been perused along with the record of trial Court. In view of the evidence led by the complainant, this Court is of the view that the order was in accordance with law. 10. In the result, the instant revision petition is allowed. Order dated 07-12-2012 passed by revisional Court is hereby set aside in confirmation of order dated 21-04-2012 passed by JMFC, Gwalior whereby the complaint was dismissed. Accordingly, the order of taking cognizance by the trial Court dated 23-02-2013 in private complaint case No. 1576 of 2013 is also quashed.