JUDGMENT Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Kh. Mani, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondent No. 1. 2. By this Criminal Revision Petition, the petitioner is questioning the irregularity of the proceedings in respect of the case being Cril. Misc. Case No. 44 of 2015 pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Bishnupur. 3.1 According to the petitioner, he is now serving as Additional Superintendent of Police, Bishnupur District, Manipur. On a complaint lodged by one Ngangom (O) Chaobi Devi of Tronglaobi Makha Leikai, Bishnupur District, Manipur, an FIR No. 43(4)2015 BPR- PS u/s. 409/418/420/120-B IPC was registered on 25-04-2015 against 3 (three) persons including Shri Oinam Jawan Singh, the husband of the respondent No. 1. Before Shri Oinam Jawan Singh could be arrested in connection with the said FIR, he had obtained an anticipatory bail from the Sessions Judge, Bishnupur on 20-05-2015. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 03-06-2015, Shri Oinam Jawan Singh was arrested by the Police personnel, Lamphel Police Station in connection with the FIR No. 56(2)2015 LPS u/s. 409/418/420/468/471/120-B IPC. The said arrest was effected by the Lamphel Police personnel on the strength of a warrant of arrest issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West in Cril. Misc. Case No. 97 of 2015. 3.2 The Cril. Misc. Case No. 44 of 2015 was filed by the Respondent No. 1 before the learned Sessions Judge, Bishnupur for making a reference to the Hon'ble High Court for initiating contempt proceedings against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has violated the court's order dated 20-05-2015 passed in Cril. Misc. Case (AB) No. 39 of 2015 granting anticipatory bail to the husband of the Respondent No. 1. On 05-06-2015, the learned Sessions Judge, Bishnupur was pleased to issue notice to the petitioner with the direction that the petitioner should appear before it in person on 09-06-2015. On receipt of the summon dated 08-06-2015, the petitioner appeared before the learned Sessions Judge on 09-06-2015 and on his prayer, the matter was adjourned to 16-06-2015 for showing cause. In the meanwhile, the present Cril. On receipt of the summon dated 08-06-2015, the petitioner appeared before the learned Sessions Judge on 09-06-2015 and on his prayer, the matter was adjourned to 16-06-2015 for showing cause. In the meanwhile, the present Cril. Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the said proceedings on the inter-alia grounds that the learned Sessions Judge, with malafide intention, had taken cognizance without verifying, through the learned APP, as to whether the Respondent No. 1's husband had been arrested in connection with FIR No. 43(4)2015 BPR-PS u/s.409/418/420/120-B IPC or not and that the learned Sessions Judge had issued the notice, with direction for personal appearance, without application of mind. 4. The said Cril. Revision Petition is contested by the respondent No. 1 by filing an affidavit-in-opposition contending inter-alia that the petition is not maintainable at all as the petitioner has not challenged any finding, sentence or order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bishnupur and that the petitioner is aggrieved only by the summon dated 08-06-2015 which is rendered infructuous since the petitioner has already appeared before the Court on 09-06-2015. It is further submitted that on 03-06-2015, when her husband along with his friends went to Bishnupur District Police Station for recording his statement, the respondent No. 1's husband was arrested by the Officer-in-charge, Bishnupur Police Station as directed by the petitioner despite the order granting anticipatory bail being passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bishnupur. The respondent No. 1's husband was kept in the lock-up till early morning of the next day i.e., dated 04-06-2015. While the respondent No. 1's husband was in custody of the Bishnupur Police Station, he was taken to the Bishnupur Hospital for medical check-up at about 8:00 p.m. along with Oinam Dhaneshwor Singh and Smt. Laishram Rajeshwori Devi. The arrest and detention of the Respondent No. 1's husband was witnessed by many who were also detained along with him and as such, the present writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. The exercise of revisional power by the High Court under Section 397 is to call for the records of any inferior criminal court and to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court and to pass appropriate orders. 5. The exercise of revisional power by the High Court under Section 397 is to call for the records of any inferior criminal court and to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court and to pass appropriate orders. In other words, the grounds on which the power can be exercised are two - (a) where the finding, sentence or order is illegal or improper and (b) where the proceedings are irregular. From the perusal of the averments made in the present Criminal Revision Petition, it is indubitably clear that the petitioner has not questioned the correctness or legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bishnupur and this inference is evident from the main prayer made herein which is only to set aside the proceedings of the Crl. Misc. Case No. 44 of 2015. Therefore, the short question that arise for consideration by this court is as to whether the proceedings are irregular or not. 6. In order to decide the above issue, it may be appropriate for this court to examine as to what the words "proceedings" and "regular" would mean. The word 'proceeding' is defined in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary "as doing a legal action or process, any act done by the authority of a court of law." In other words, as per the dictionary meaning of the word 'proceeding', it is the course of procedure in an action at law and an action, measure or step in a course of business or conduct. The Criminal Procedure Code does not define the word 'proceeding' though the same is being used in the provisions of some of the sections like Section 195(1)(b),116(3) etc. of the Criminal Procedure Code. Various High Courts have examined the word 'proceeding' with reference to the particular statute involved therein and have expressed their views that the word 'proceeding' is not purely a technical expression with a definite meaning attached to it. Necessarily the term indicates a prescribed mode in which judicial business is conducted. A 'proceeding' may in some statutes mean an action or that which initiates an action and in other enactments it may also mean a step in an action. Necessarily the term indicates a prescribed mode in which judicial business is conducted. A 'proceeding' may in some statutes mean an action or that which initiates an action and in other enactments it may also mean a step in an action. The expression 'proceedings' with reference to a case, would mean taking of steps in connection with the further progress of the case. When a case is listed for hearing and the case is taken up by the court and an order is also made in the case, it would be proceedings in the case. As per Webster's New World Dictionary, the word 'regular' is defined as consistent or habitual in action; not changing; uniform; conforming to a standard or to a generally accepted rule or mode of conduct. As regards the word 'regularity' also, various High Courts have examined it and expressed their views that the term 'regularity' is a well recognised term and well recognised ground of judicial interference on an appeal or revision. The word 'regular' gives a constant course of conduct without any break or breach. It is 'irregular' when the procedure followed is in violation of the principles of Natural Justice and fair play. 7. It is indubitably clear that the words 'proceedings' and 'regular' are not capable of any definite meaning and are to be understood with reference to the objectives sought to be achieved in the relevant statute. In the present case, a Cril. Misc. Application No. 44 of 2015 was filed by the Respondent No. 1 on 05-06-2015 when the learned Sessions Judge, Bishnupur was pleased to issue notice with the direction that the petitioner should appear in person. The summon dated 08-06-2015 was served upon the petitioner on the same day and on 09-06-2015 the petitioner appeared before the learned Sessions Judge and prayed for some time for filing show cause which was granted by the learned Sessions Judge adjourning the case till 16-06-2015. On 16-06-2015, when the case was taken up for further proceedings, the learned Sessions Judge adjourned the case till 22-06-2015 on the prayer made by the O.C., Bishnupur Police Station. On 16-06-2015, when the case was taken up for further proceedings, the learned Sessions Judge adjourned the case till 22-06-2015 on the prayer made by the O.C., Bishnupur Police Station. That is how the proceedings in the said case have commenced and the same are being challenged by the petitioner herein by filing the present Criminal Revision Petition on 12-06-2015 mainly on two grounds that the learned Sessions Judge issued the notice for appearance without application of mind and that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have given an opportunity to the learned APP for verification whether the Respondent No. 1's husband was arrested by the Bishnupur P.S. or not before issuing the summon to the petitioner. These grounds could be good grounds for questioning the legality or correctness of the order dated 05-06-2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge but have no much relevance or value as regards the irregularity of the proceedings. As has been stated in the preceding para, the said order dated 05-06-2015 or for that matter any finding or sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, has not been challenged in the present petition nor is there any prayer for quashing/setting aside the same. 8. After analyzing the observations made by the various High Courts and in the context of Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the word 'proceedings' would mean actions or steps taken by the learned Sessions Judge, including orders, towards the disposal of the said Cril. Misc. Case in accordance with law. The proceedings can be said to have just commenced at the time when the order dated 05-06-2015 was passed by the learned Sessions Judge and there is no irregularity in that. The only thing by which the petitioner might be aggrieved, is that the time period given in the summon for appearing before the learned Sessions Judge by the petitioner, was too short. But that grievance is no longer available with him since the petitioner has already appeared before the learned Sessions Judge on 09-06-2015 in response to and in compliance of the summon dated 08-06-2015 and all issues relating to the said summon have become academic. In order to substantiate his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Kumar Dhankar v. State of Haryana & anr. In order to substantiate his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Kumar Dhankar v. State of Haryana & anr. reported in (2012) 11 SCC 252 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. was available to Respondent No. 2 in challenging the order of the Magistrate directing issuance of summons. There is no issue at all as regards the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case. But the said law is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case for the reason that the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 05-06-2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, issuing summons to him. The petitioner has challenged only the proceedings on the ground of being irregular but the petitioner is unable to show as to how the proceeding can be said to be irregular when it has just commenced on the passing of the order dated 05-06-2015 issuing summons to him. The question of irregularity may arise in a case where there is breach or break in the uniformity of the actions or steps being taken by the Court. There is no question of such breach or break in the proceeding of the case being Cril. Misc. Case No. 44 of 2015 because it is at its initial stage and in other words, it is just the beginning of it. 9. In view of the above observations, this court is of the view that the present petition is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. The registry is directed to return the Case Records to the learned Sessions Judge, Bishnupur at the earliest possible and the parties are directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Bishnupur on 20-08-2015 for further proceedings in the said case being Cril. Misc. Case No. 44 of 2015.