JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to set aside the order dated 04.02.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.625 of 2019 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XV Cum F.T.C. (CAW), Ranchi whereby and where under the revisional court has set aside the order taking cognizance dated 11.09.2019 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi in Complaint Case No.3614 of 2018 now pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Ranchi. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant/opposite party No.2 of this Cr.M.P. filed Complaint Case No.3614 of 2018 and arrayed five persons as accused in the said complaint case. The learned S.D.J.M found sufficient grounds only for the offences punishable under Sections 506 of the Indian Penal Code against only one accused being the petitioner No.1 herein. Being dissatisfied with the said order, the complainant filed Criminal Revision No.625 of 2019 in the court of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi which was ultimately heard by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XV Cum F.T.C. (CAW), Ranchi. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XV Cum F.T.C. (CAW), Ranchi formulated the following question for determination in the said Criminal Revision:- “Whether the impugned order dated 11.09.2019 is just proper, based on the proper appreciation of the evidence/material available in the record?” 4. After considering the materials in the record, the revisional court observed that in its order dated 11.09.2019, the learned S.D.J.M. has not recorded the satisfaction for forming his opinion and sufficiency of ground for proceeding and the documents filed by the complainant with the complaint has not been mentioned in the said order and the learned S.D.J.M. has overlooked various aspects of the case which has been mentioned in detail in the said order passed in the criminal revision. Hence, finding the order dated 11.09.2019 being not in accordance with law, the revisional court set aside the said order and directed the learned S.D.J.M. to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving full opportunity to both sides for placing their submissions and remanded the case back to the court concerned. 5. Hence, finding the order dated 11.09.2019 being not in accordance with law, the revisional court set aside the said order and directed the learned S.D.J.M. to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving full opportunity to both sides for placing their submissions and remanded the case back to the court concerned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned revisional court failed to appreciate the evidence of the case and the legal bar in impleading a stranger in a Criminal Revision as the proposed accused No.5 of the protest petition namely Atul Kumar @ Atul Kumar Pandey was not cited as a proposed accused in the Protest-Cum-Complaint Petition No.3614 of 2018 but he was added by order dated 27.06.2019. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the revisional court did not take into consideration, the pendency of several litigations between the parties in several courts. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajendra Rajoriya vs. Jagat Narain Thapak & Another reported in (2018) 17 SCC 234 para-13 of which reads as under:- “13. The extent of the revisionary powers, inter alia, is provided under Section 399 read with Section 401 CrPC. It is clear from the aforesaid provisions that Section 398 has to be read along with other sections which are equally applicable to the revision petitions filed before the Sessions Court. Section 398 only deals with a distinct power to direct further inquiry, whereas Section 397 read with Section 399 and Section 401 confers power on the revisionary authority to examine correctness, legality or propriety of any findings, sentence or order. The powers of the revisionary court have to be cumulatively understood in consonance with Sections 398, 399 and 401 CrPC.” and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has discussed the power of the revisional court under Section 397, 398, 399 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. and the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner was not proper in entertaining the Criminal Revision. 6. 6. It is next submitted that in the context of complaint, the order dated 11.09.2019 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. was not an interlocutory order so, the Criminal Revision is not maintainable as the complainant has alternative remedy to make the same prayer under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 04.02.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.625 of 2019 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XV Cum F.T.C. (CAW), Ranchi whereby and where under the revisional court has set aside the order taking cognizance dated 11.09.2019 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi in Complaint Case No.3614 of 2018 now pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Ranchi be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer for quashing the order dated 04.02.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.625 of 2019 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XV Cum F.T.C. (CAW), Ranchi whereby and where under the revisional court has set aside the order taking cognizance dated 11.09.2019 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi in Complaint Case No.3614 of 2018 now pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Ranchi and relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ranjit Das @ Dr. Ranjeet Das vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No.1630 of 2019 dated 19th April, 2023 in which case this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI reported in (2017) 14 SCC 809 para 21, 22 and 38 of which reads as under:- “21. The concept of an intermediate order was further elucidated in [Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 10] by contradistinguishing a final order and an interlocutory order. This decision lays down the principle that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come to mind—an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an accused and an order for framing charges. This decision lays down the principle that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come to mind—an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an accused and an order for framing charges. Prima facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Similarly, an order for framing of charges if reversed has the effect of discharging the accused person and resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way, the proceedings would continue. 22. The view expressed in Amar Nath [Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 137 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 585] and Madhu Limaye [Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 10] was followed in [K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2000) 6 SCC 195 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 200] wherein a revision petition was filed challenging the taking of cognizance and issuance of a process. It was said: (K.K. Patel case [K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2000) 6 SCC 195 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 200], SCC p. 201, para 11) “11. … It is now well-nigh settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not as for Section 397(2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage (vide [Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 137 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 585], [Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 10], [V.C. Shukla v. State, 1980 Supp SCC 92 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 695] and [Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam, (1999) 3 SCC 134 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 393]). The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the objection raised by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard, the order was revisable.” 38. The Criminal Procedure Code is undoubtedly a complete code in itself. As has already been discussed by us, the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 397(2) CrPC is to be exercised only in respect of final orders and intermediate orders. The power under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised only in respect of interlocutory orders to give effect to an order passed under the Criminal Procedure Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to serve the ends of justice. As indicated above, this power has to be exercised only in the rarest of rare cases and not otherwise. If that is the position, and we are of the view that it is so, resort to Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution would be permissible perhaps only in the most extraordinary case. To invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court when the Criminal Procedure Code restricts it in the interest of a fair and expeditious trial for the benefit of the accused person, we find it difficult to accept the proposition that since Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are available to an accused person, these provisions should be resorted to in cases that are not the rarest of rare but for trifling issues.” (emphasis supplied) 8. Perusal of the record reveals that there is no material to show that the petitioners who were also appearing before the revisional court ever challenged the jurisdiction of the revisional court to entertain the criminal revision. 9. In view of the order passed by this Court in the case of Ranjit Das @ Dr. Ranjeet Das vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another (supra), this Court is of the considered view that no illegality has been committed by the revisional court in entertaining the Criminal Revision more so when its jurisdiction was never challenged by the petitioners; who were opposite parties of the Criminal Revision. 10. Ranjeet Das vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another (supra), this Court is of the considered view that no illegality has been committed by the revisional court in entertaining the Criminal Revision more so when its jurisdiction was never challenged by the petitioners; who were opposite parties of the Criminal Revision. 10. The learned revisional court has only remitted the matter back to the learned S.D.J.M. with liberty to the parties to put forth their submissions before the learned S.D.J.M. and the learned S.D.J.M. was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Hence, the petitioners can agitate their grievances of certain facts being not considered before the learned S.D.J.M. in terms of order passed by the revisional court. 11. Accordingly, this Court do not find any merit in this Cr.M.P. Hence, this Cr.M.P. being without any merit, is dismissed and the interim order, if any, stands vacated. 12. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. 13. Before parting, it is made clear that the learned S.D.J.M. shall not be influenced by any observations made in the order passed by the revisional court in Criminal Revision No.625 of 2019 and will pass a fresh order in application of its own independent mind.