of the matter pending before the trial court and for assisting the parties in the prosecution of the matter pending before the trial court and for assisting the parties in the prosecution for their case in the pending proceedings. I am of the view that on a dismissal or allowing of petition filed under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure, either by the investigating agency or at the instance of private complainant, the same cannot be characterized neither as a final order not as an interlocutory order, but the same has vital consequence, at the stage of final adjudication of the main proceedings pending before the court connected with the inquiry or trial commenced. So, according to me, the order impugned in this revision petition is an order passed during the course of proceedings, but not final in the sense, determining the right or liabilities of the parties and the same is not an interlocutory order, but the order can be categorized as the one falling in between the final order and interlocutory order and the outcome of such order is likely to affect the interest of the parties in the trial and therefore, such order is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court and the bar contained in Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not attracted. No doubt, the proceedings which are the subject-matter of the decisions reported in State represented by Inspector of Police and Ors. v. N.M.T Joy Immaculate Manu/SC/0448/2004: (2004) 5 S.C.C 729, Rocky, V.A
