ORDER : Heard the parties. 2. This Cr.M.P. has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 08.03.2016, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Cr. Rev. No. 06 of 2015, whereby the learned Court has declined to set aside the order dated 30.04.2015, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in Complaint Petitioner C- 166 of 2005. 3. The facts of the case in brief is that petitioner through two registered sale deed Nos. 617 and 618 dated 18.03.2015 purchase 11/2 decimals of land from one Sukra Bhuiyan and Basant Bhuiyan of Sisai Road. On 15.06.2005, the accused Mahendra Ram demanded the sale deeds from the petitioner to see it and after receipt of the same, he fled away and did not return it to the petitioner. The petitioner repeatedly requested Mahednra Ram to return the sale deeds but he denied to return the same. Ultimately, the petitioner lodged complaint before the Gumla Police Station. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the said Mahendra Ram had executed sale deeds of the aforesaid land in favour of Sakra Bhuiyan and Basant Bhuiyan on 01.04.2005. After some days, when the petitioner was coming from the office of Circle Officer, the said Mahendra Ram and Dubraj Bhuiyan came on a motorcycle and on the point of gun asked him to sign on a blank paper saying that he had received a sum of Rs. One lakh. The petitioner due to fear wrote the said fact and put his signature on it. It is further submitted that on the basis of complaint, same was registered and trial proceeded. The evidence was also closed on 26.06.2013. The complainant filed a petition before the learned Trial Court to recall the witness, which was allowed and he was directed to produce his witness within next three dates on the condition of payment of cost to the accused. The petitioner deposited the cost with the accused persons and asked the witnesses to depose before the trial Court but they did not turn up on one pretext or the other and ultimately, they could not be examined. The complainant was under impression that he will depose after examination of his two witnesses but due to lackadaisical attitude, they could not be examined and hence, the evidence on behalf of the complainant again closed on 26.03.2015. The complainant was under impression that he will depose after examination of his two witnesses but due to lackadaisical attitude, they could not be examined and hence, the evidence on behalf of the complainant again closed on 26.03.2015. Thereafter, the complainant again filed a petition for recalling the closure order of evidence on 22.04.2015 but this time, learned trial Court after hearing both the parties, rejected the petition of complainant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner is not permitted to adduce any evidence or to be examined as witness, he will suffer irreparable loss and injury. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by all terms and conditions, if imposed by this Hon’ble Court. Learned counsel further argued that the lower court has passed the order mechanically without any basis which requires interference by this Court and as such, fit to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that grounds taken by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 08.03.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla are not tenable. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly dismissed the Revision Application, since against an interlocutory order revision is not maintainable. 6. Upon going through the rival submissions of the parties and considering the several judicial pronouncement, this Court is of the view that the order dated 08.03.2016 warrants no interference on the following grounds :- (I) The revision against an interlocutory order is not maintainable in view of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. and in view of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Mohit @ Sonu & Anr. Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in (2013) 7 SCC 789 ; S.K. Bhatt Vrs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2005) 3 SCC 634 [ : 2005 (2) JLJR (SC) 110]; and Amar Nath Vrs. State of Haryana, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 137 . (II) Answering the question raised on maintainability of the interlocutory application and whether it is barred under Sub-Section 2 of Section 397 Cr. P.C., the Hon'ble Apex Court in para-3 of its judgment passed in the case of Amar Nath Vrs. State of Haryana (supra), has held as under :- “3. (II) Answering the question raised on maintainability of the interlocutory application and whether it is barred under Sub-Section 2 of Section 397 Cr. P.C., the Hon'ble Apex Court in para-3 of its judgment passed in the case of Amar Nath Vrs. State of Haryana (supra), has held as under :- “3. While we fully agree with the view taken by the learned Judge that where a revision to the High Court against the order of the Subordinate Judge is expressly barred under sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the 1973 Code the inherent powers contained in Section 482 would not be available to defeat the bar contained in Section 397(2). Section 482 of the 1973 Code contains the inherent powers of the Court and does not confer any new powers but preserves the powers which the High Court already possessed. A harmonious construction of Sections 397 and 482 would lead to the irresistible conclusion that where a particular order is expressly barred under Section 397(2) and cannot be the subject of revision by the High Court, then to such a case the provisions of Section 482 would not apply. It is well settled that the inherent powers of the court can ordinarily be exercised when there is no express provision on the subject-matter. Where there is an express provision, barring a particular remedy, the Court cannot resort to the exercise of inherent powers.” 7. From the facts of the aforesaid case and from the impugned order it transpires that while the case record was fixed for statement U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. and by order dated 20.08.2014 three adjournments were given to the complainant for production of evidence but he failed to do so, hence the evidence of the complainant was closed on 26.03.2015. 8. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, it seems that the revisionist had lost interest in the case and there is no infringement of the rights and liabilities of the parties concerned as they themselves have lost interest in the aforesaid case since 3 adjournments were given to the complainant for adducing evidence but he failed to do so and as such, the evidence was rightly closed on 26.03.2015. 9. In view of the aforesaid rules and the settled proposition of law, the impugned order warrants no interference and as such, quashing application is dismissed.