JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—List has been revised. No one appears on behalf of the revisionists. Heard learned AGA and perused the record. Complainant Maya Devi (opposite party No. 1) had filed complaint in the Court below, where she examined herself under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and two witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. then after hearing on the point of summoning, learned Magistrate had passed order dated 3.2.2005, by which, cognizable offence under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC were taken against four accused persons (present revisionists) and order for issuance of summon was passed. Against the summoning order, revisionists appeared before the trial Court and moved application for recall of summoning order dated 3.2.2005. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Magistrate had passed impugned order dated 10.5.2005, by which application for recall of the summoning order was rejected. Aggrieved by the order dated 10.5.2005, present revision has been preferred by revisionists. 2. In Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and others, 2004 (50) ACC 924, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court held : “It is true that if a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, issues process without there being any allegation against the accused or any material implicating the accused or in contravention of provision of Sections 200 and 202, the order of the Magistrate may be vitiated, but then the relief an aggrieved accused can obtain at that stage is not by invoking Section 203 of the Code because the Criminal Procedure Code does not contemplate a review power of an order. Hence in absence of any review power or inherent power with the subordinate Criminal Courts, the remedy lies in invoking Section 482 of Code.” 3. In Vijai and others v. State of U.P. and another, 2004 (1) JIC 393 (All), this Court held : “It was further held that the conclusion drawn in “Kailash Chaudhary v. State of U.P., 1993 (30) ACC 665” is not backed up by any provisions in Cr.P.C. and it amounts to reversing the procedure for trial which is not permissible under the Cr.P.C. challenging the order of issuing process before the Court. Issuing the said process is in fact requiring the arms of the clock to move anticlockwise which does not happen or at least should not happen. A parallel trial should not commence before the actual trial begins. Issuing the said process is in fact requiring the arms of the clock to move anticlockwise which does not happen or at least should not happen. A parallel trial should not commence before the actual trial begins. - - -Thus, it has been held that when accused has been summoned they have to appear and file bail bonds. The case has to proceed. At proper stage as contemplated in Cr.P.C., the point of discharge can be raised, but without properly appearing in the Court and proceeding in accordance with Cr.P.C. to move application for discharge or pray for recall of the summoning order is against the procedure of Cr.P.C.” 4. In another ruling relied “Subramanium Sethuraman and another v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2004 Cri LJ 4609” Hon’ble Supreme Court held : “In Adalat Prasad’s case, this Court considered the said view of the Court in K.M. Mathew’s case and held that the issuance of process under Section 204 is a preliminary step in the stage of trial contemplated in Chapter XX of the Code. Such an order made at a preliminary stage being an interlocutory order same cannot be reviewed or reconsidered by the Magistrate. Hence, it is impermissible for the magistrate to reconsider his decision to issue process in the absence of any specific provision to recall such order.” 5. Real trial has to start after appearance of revisionist before trial Court. After appearance before the trial Court, revisionist shall have opportunities to get remedies in accordance with procedure established by law. Learned Magistrate could not permit the revisionist and other accused a parallel hearing on merits of the case before the start of actual hearing of the case in accordance with the procedure established by law. Court below could not legally allow the application of revisionists by reviewing or reconsidering its own summoning order in garb of discharge or recall as prayed in it. 6. Summoning order dated 3.2.2005 passed under Section 204 CrPC, being a final order on that point. But that order was not challenged by the revisionist-accused. Order of disposing off an objection against the summoning order, as held in abovementioned rulings, is an interlocutory order that cannot be reviewed before the personal appearance of accused. Learned Magistrate had rightly relied on ruling of Adalat Prasad’s case at the time of passing the order under challenge. But that order was not challenged by the revisionist-accused. Order of disposing off an objection against the summoning order, as held in abovementioned rulings, is an interlocutory order that cannot be reviewed before the personal appearance of accused. Learned Magistrate had rightly relied on ruling of Adalat Prasad’s case at the time of passing the order under challenge. So no illegality, irregularity or impropriety appears to have been committed by learned Magistrate when it rejected the application of recall of the summoning order passed on merit under Section 204 CrPC. So present revision is not maintainable, and there is no justification for interference in impugned order. Revision, accordingly, is dismissed. ———————