Process issuance is revisable and need not be supported by detailed reasons at the Section 204 stage.

An order issuing process against an accused is not a purely interlocutory order and therefore remains open to revision under Section 397 CrPC because it affects substantial rights. At the Section 204 stage, after cognizance on a police report, the Magistrate need only consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and whether any legal bar, such as sanction or limitation, exists. Detailed appreciation of evidence or elaborate reasons is not required at that stage, unlike dismissal of a complaint under Section 203. The revisional challenge was accordingly found maintainable and the order issuing process was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an order summoning the accused was an interlocutory order so as to bar revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) whether process could be issued under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 without recording detailed reasons after the Magistrate had taken cognizance on a police report.

Issue (i): Whether an order summoning the accused was an interlocutory order so as to bar revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The revisional challenge was held to be maintainable because an order issuing process does not fall in the category of a purely interlocutory order. The court relied on the settled principle that an order summoning an accused affects substantial rights and is therefore amenable to revisional scrutiny.

Conclusion: The revision was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether process could be issued under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 without recording detailed reasons after the Magistrate had taken cognizance on a police report.

Analysis: The stages under cognizance, issuance of process, discharge, framing of charge, and final adjudication were treated as distinct. At the stage of Section 204, the Magistrate is required only to see whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and whether the case is barred by law, such as want of sanction or limitation. Detailed appreciation of evidence and recording of reasons is not required at that stage, unlike under Section 203 where dismissal of a complaint must be reasoned.

Conclusion: The impugned order issuing process without detailed reasons was held to be valid.

Final Conclusion: The revisional court upheld the issuance of process and found no illegality in the Magistrate's order, resulting in dismissal of the revision.

Ratio Decidendi: An order issuing process is not a mere interlocutory order, and at the stage of Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the Magistrate need not conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence or record elaborate reasons so long as there is sufficient ground for proceeding and no legal bar to prosecution exists.

---