ORDER : K. Lakshman, J. Heard Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Palle Nageshwar Rao, the Public Prosecutor appearing for Respondent No. 1, and Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar appearing for Respondent No. 2. 2. The present criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of the BharatiyaNagrik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter ‘BNSS’) seeking to quash the order dated 10.07.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 53 of 2024 in Crl.R.P.(SR) No. 138 of 2024 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Jayashankar Bhupalapally at Bhupalapally District. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 3. Respondent No. 2 had filed a private complaint dated 06.11.2023 under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘CrPC’) against the Petitioners. The said private complaint was filed before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jayashankar Bhupalapally (‘learned Magistrate’). 4. In the private complaint, Respondent No. 2 alleged that Petitioner No. 1, the then Chief Minister of Telangana and Petitioner No. 2, the then Minister for Irrigation Department were in-charge of the construction of the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project (‘project’). He alleged that on 21.10.2023, the pillars in the 07 th block of the project started sinking. After which, water supply through the project was stopped. The National Dam Safety Authority had conducted an investigation and submitted a report dated 01.11.2023 on the state of the project. Based on the report dated 01.11.2023, Respondent No. 2 alleged that the construction of the project began without proper consultation with the engineers and without adhering to their advice. Further, it was alleged that soil test was conducted by drilling the core. The project was allegedly constructed on ‘sand soil’ which would not have borne its weight. Respondent No. 2 also alleged that the project was allotted to M/s GENCO who have no experience in building dams and irrigation projects. Based on these allegations, Respondent No. 2, stated that the Petitioners in conspiracy with other accused had misappropriated public money and caused huge loss to the state exchequer. In the private complaint, Respondent No. 2 also stated that he had filed a complaint dated 25.10.2023 before the Station House Officer, Bhupalapally. However, as no action was taken, he had filed a private complaint alleging offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 386, 406, and 409 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’). 5. On 15.12.2023, the sworn statement of Respondent No. 2 was recorded, wherein he reiterated the contents of the complaint. However, as no action was taken, he had filed a private complaint alleging offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 386, 406, and 409 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’). 5. On 15.12.2023, the sworn statement of Respondent No. 2 was recorded, wherein he reiterated the contents of the complaint. Thereafter, the Magistrate vide order dated 12.01.2024 dismissed the private complaint filed by Respondent No. 2. In the said order, the Magistrate noted that the allegations against Petitioners constitute offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PCA’). Therefore, only the Special Court constituted under the PCA will have jurisdiction to entertain the private complaint. The learned Magistrate noted that the private complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 was returned earlier on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. However, Respondent No. 2 stated that the learned Magistrate has jurisdiction as only offences under the IPC had been alleged. 6. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.01.2024, Respondent No. 2 filed a criminal revision under Section 397 of the CrPC. While scrutinizing the revision petition filed by Respondent No. 2, the office of revisional Court raised an objection dated 04.04.2024 regarding its maintainability and returned the same. However, Respondent No. 2 resubmitted the petition on the ground that the revision is maintainable as both the Sessions Court and High Court have concurrent revisional jurisdiction. 7. It is pertinent to note here that the revision petition was given a temporary filing number – SR No. 138/2024. Further, the impugned order was apparently passed in an application bearing Crl.M.P. No. 53/2024 in SR No. 138/2024. This Court had called for the record of the revisional court and could not find any application which was numbered as Crl.M.P. No. 53/2024. This Court is at a loss to understand as to why an order was passed in Crl.M.P. No. 53/2024 and what Crl.M.P. No. 53/2024 was. 8. Notwithstanding the error of giving the caption of Crl.M.P. No. 53/2024, the revisional court vide impugned order dated 10.07.2024 overruled the objections on maintainability and directed its office to number the criminal revision petition filed by Respondent No. 2 to be numbered. Further, the revisional court had directed issuance of notices to the Petitioners and other accused. 8. Notwithstanding the error of giving the caption of Crl.M.P. No. 53/2024, the revisional court vide impugned order dated 10.07.2024 overruled the objections on maintainability and directed its office to number the criminal revision petition filed by Respondent No. 2 to be numbered. Further, the revisional court had directed issuance of notices to the Petitioners and other accused. In the impugned order, the revisional court noted that the project falls within the jurisdiction of Mahadevpur police station which in turn falls within the jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jayashankar Bhupalapally. Therefore, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jayashankar Bhupalapally had jurisdiction. Further, relying on Section 200 of the CrPC, the revisional court held that a Magistrate has power to take cognizance of cases even triable by a Sessions Court. In such cases, the Magistrate will take cognizance and commit the same to the appropriate Sessions Court. Therefore, the revisional court held that the Magistrate was empowered to take cognizance. This Court stresses here that these findings were given by the Sessions Court while deciding the objections raised by its office regarding the maintainability. 9. Assailing the order dated 10.07.2024, the Petitioners have filed the present criminal petition. 10. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS: i. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge had re-opened the question of jurisdiction which is impermissible. ii. The impugned order is without legal basis and is based on surmises and conjectures. The said order reflects non-application of mind. iii. The impugned order renders unwarranted findings that the dismissal of the complaint will send a wrong message to the society. iv. Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC is limited. There was no error apparent which warrants exercise of such jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu , [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2283.] , Ch. Raghunandan Rao v. State of Telangana , [2022 (2) ALD (Crl.) 472 (TS).] , and K . Prudhvi v. K. Sravanthi , [2022 (2) ALD (Crl.) 806 (TS).] 11. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NOS. 1 AND 2: i. The Respondents supported the reasoning given by the revisional court in the impugned order. They contended that the revision petition was maintainable. ii. Further, Respondent No. 1 through its counter affidavit stated that it shall abide by any order passed by this Court. FINDINGS OF THE COURT 12. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NOS. 1 AND 2: i. The Respondents supported the reasoning given by the revisional court in the impugned order. They contended that the revision petition was maintainable. ii. Further, Respondent No. 1 through its counter affidavit stated that it shall abide by any order passed by this Court. FINDINGS OF THE COURT 12. As discussed supra, the present petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS challenging the impugned order, dated 10.07.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.53 of 2024 in Crl.R.P.(SR) No.138 of 2024 of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jayashankar Bhupalapally at Jayashankar Bhupallipally. Vide the aforesaid order, learned revisional Court having overruled the objection taken by its office with regard to maintainability of the revision made some observations. 13. There is no doubt about the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC. It is well settled that the said jurisdiction is extremely limited and can be exercised only to test the legality, correctness, or propriety of any finding. Further, Section 397 (2) of the CrPC expressly bars exercise of revisional jurisdiction against interlocutory orders. It is pertinent to note that a revision petition is maintainable against orders which result in the closure or culmination of criminal proceedings. In other words, a revision is maintainable against final orders. In this regard, the following paragraphs of K. Prudhvi (supra) are relevant: 14. Therefore, from the decisions of the Supreme Court, for the purpose of Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., orders may be classified as interlocutory orders, intermediate orders and final orders. 15. To further clarify, an interlocutory order is the one which is interim and temporary in nature. It is the opposite of a final order. In other words, an interlocutory order will not result in culmination or termination of final proceedings. Interlocutory orders are merely ancillary orders which are decided at the interim stage and such orders aid in deciding the final rights and liabilities of the parties. 16. An order passed in an interlocutory application during the intermediate stage of the proceedings might decide the rights and liabilities of parties. Such an order though interlocutory has to be termed as an 'intermediate order'. An interlocutory application can be decided either ways. If it is decided in one way it might be an interlocutory order, but if the same is decided the other way it might result in culmination of proceedings. Such an order though interlocutory has to be termed as an 'intermediate order'. An interlocutory application can be decided either ways. If it is decided in one way it might be an interlocutory order, but if the same is decided the other way it might result in culmination of proceedings. Therefore, interlocutory applications where the orders might result in culmination of proceedings shall be treated as intermediate orders against which a revision application under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable [see Girish Kumar Suneja's case (supra)]. 14. In the present case, the Petitioners contend that the revision is not maintainable. However, such a contention is misplaced. Admittedly, the private complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 was dismissed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 12.01.2024 on the ground of jurisdiction. The dismissal of the private complaint is final in nature. Such a dismissal makes criminal proceedings non-existent. Therefore, as the learned Magistrate’s order is final in nature, the revision petition filed by Respondent No. 2 is maintainable. 15. As this Court held that the revision petition is maintainable, the Sessions Court was justified in directing the revision petition to be numbered. However, in the impugned order, the Sessions Court had made some unwarranted observations touching upon the merits of the case. For the sake of convenience, the said paragraph is extracted below: 13. In the present case, the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jayashankar Bhupalpally not took the cognizance but examined the petitioner under Section 161 of CrPC and dismissed the petition instead of return the petition to file before proper Court, For want of jurisdiction. The Court of Sessions is not having power to take the cognizance directly unless the case committed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class to him. So this Court of Sessions cannot take the cognizance on filed by the Revision Petitioner. If this Court considered the submissions of the petitioner and sent the same remittal back to the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jayashankar Bhupalpally cannot review his own order again. There is no useful to the petitioner for setting aside the order passed by the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jayashankar Bhupalpally. In my opinion that all are equal before the law. If this petition returned without proper enquiry, then wrong messages goes in the society. There is no useful to the petitioner for setting aside the order passed by the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jayashankar Bhupalpally. In my opinion that all are equal before the law. If this petition returned without proper enquiry, then wrong messages goes in the society. To make confidence on the Judiciary, it should taken as revision petition against aggrieved orders passed by the learnedPrincipal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jayashankar Bhupalpally, as it is Judicial Order. In criminal law, revision is a legal remedy that allows a superior court to examine the legality and propriety of an order passed by a subordinate Court. The procedure for filing a revision in criminal law is provided under Section 397 and Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Hon'ble High Court and Court of Sessions are having concurrent jurisdictions to entertain Revision Petition to ascertain legality and propriety of orders. However, without registering the Criminal Revision Petition and without giving opportunity to the Respondents, could not adjudicate the above issues. hence, the office is hereby directed to register the Criminal Revision petition against the orders in SR.No. 2165/2023 Dt: 12.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jayashankar Bhupalpally and issue notices to all respondents accordance with law through proper challan and Station House Officer, PS., Bhupalpally, on payment of process. Hence, the point is answered accordingly. 16. As can be seen from the above paragraph, while directing the revision petition to be numbered, the Sessions Court made observations regarding the competence of the learned Magistrate to take cognizance and commit the same to the Sessions Court. Further, it observed that no useful purpose would be served if the matter is remanded back to the Magistrate. Likewise, the Sessions Court also stated that ‘wrong message will be sent to the society’. 17. In this Court’s opinion, such observations are unwarranted and touch upon the merits of the case. These observations indicate that the Sessions Court had already made up its mind about the outcome of the case. Likewise, the Sessions Court also stated that ‘wrong message will be sent to the society’. 17. In this Court’s opinion, such observations are unwarranted and touch upon the merits of the case. These observations indicate that the Sessions Court had already made up its mind about the outcome of the case. These observations-cum- findings could not have been given at the preliminary stage when the only question before the Sessions Court was whether the revision petition was maintainable.Further, as the learned Magistrate had dismissed the private complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 on the ground of jurisdiction, the Sessions Court in revision has to decide the limited controversy as to whether the learned Magistrate could have dismissed the private complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. In the present case, the Sessions Court in its zeal to send a ‘right message to the society’ has rendered findings prejudicial to the case of the accused. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court is liable to be set aside as far as these observations-cum-findings are concerned. 18. During the course of the hearing, the counsel for the Petitioners informed this Court that the private complainant – Respondent No. 2 had died. Learned counsel for 2 nd respondent also confirmed the said fact. Relying on Kushal Kumar Talukdar v. Chandra PD. Goenka , [(2005) 3 GLR 491.] , he contended that on death of a private complainant, the proceedings cannot continue. On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor contended that even when a complainant dies, the criminal proceedings continue. He relied on Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas v. State of Maharashtra , [ (1967) 1 SCR 807 .] and Chand Devi Daga v. Manju K. Humatani , [ (2018) 1 SCC 71 .] and Sanjit Kumar Mishra and others vs. Ranjit Mishra, Crl.Rev.No.579 of 2011, dated 06.09.2022 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack . The contention of the Petitioners’ counsel cannot be accepted for the reasons stated below. 19. Under Section 256 of the CrPC, it is only in summons-cases that the death of the complainant will result in an acquittal of the accused. All other cases which are warrant-cases, the death of the complainant will not result in an acquittal. This can be seen in Section 249 of the CrPC. 20. 19. Under Section 256 of the CrPC, it is only in summons-cases that the death of the complainant will result in an acquittal of the accused. All other cases which are warrant-cases, the death of the complainant will not result in an acquittal. This can be seen in Section 249 of the CrPC. 20. A warrants-case is defined under Section 2 (x) of the CrPC as an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment, and imprisonment for a term exceeding two years. A summons-case is defined under Section 2 (w) of the CrPC as a case not being a warrants case. 21. For the sake of convenience, the said provisions are extracted below: 2( w ) “summons-case” means a case relating to an offence, and not being a warrant-case; 2( x ) “warrant-case” means a case relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment forlife or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years; 249. Absence of complainant .—When the proceedings have been instituted upon complaint, and on any dayfixed for the hearing of the case, the complainant is absent, and the offence may be lawfully compounded or is not acognizable offence, the Magistrate may, in his discretion,notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, at anytime before the charge has been framed, discharge the accused. 256. Non-appearance or death of complainant .—(1 If the summons has been issued on complaint, and onthe day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may beadjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained,acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day: Provided that where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by the officer conducting the prosecution orwhere the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistratemay, dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply also to cases where the non-appearance ofthe complainant is due to his death. 22. In the present case too, the question remains whether the alleged offences constitute a warrants-case or a summons-case. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply also to cases where the non-appearance ofthe complainant is due to his death. 22. In the present case too, the question remains whether the alleged offences constitute a warrants-case or a summons-case. As no cognizance is taken in the present case and the revision is pending before the Sessions Court, this Court does not deem it appropriate to decide whether the offences alleged in the private complaint constitute a summons-case or a warrant-case. Such decision will invariably lead this Court to consider the contents of the private complaint which is impermissible considering only the order dated 10.07.2024 is under challenge. In the event, the Sessions Court allows the revision petition and remands the matter back to the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate, on considering the case on merits, takes cognizance of the alleged offences and those offences do not constitute a warrants-case, it will be open for the Petitioners to raise the issue of death of the complainant and its effect under Section 256 of the CrPC. 23. In view of the above discussion, the present criminal petition is disposed of with the following terms: i. The revision petition before the Principal Sessions Judge, Jayashankar Bhupalapally at Bhupalapally District filed by Respondent No. 2 is maintainable; ii. The impugned order dated 10.07.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 53 of 2024 in Crl.R.P.No. (SR) No. 138 of 2024 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Jayashankar Bhupalapally at Bhupalapally District is set aside to the extent of observations made in paragraph number 13 of the said order; iii. The Principal Sessions Judge, Jayashankar Bhupalapally at Bhupalapally District is directed to decide the criminal revision petition bearing Crl.R.P. No. 02/2024 (earlier numbered as Crl.R.P. No. (SR) No. 138 of 2024) strictly in accordance with law. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these Criminal Petitions shall stand closed.