C482 No.673/05 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, Adv. i/b Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. Mr. Rajendra Singh, Adv. for respondent no.2 to 12. Learned counsel for both the parties fairly submitted that in light of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal & others reported in (2004) 7 SCC 338, against the summoning order, revision is not maintainable, and only the petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable. They further agreed that in light of the above- said dictum, the impugned order dated 6.6.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/First FTC, Roorkee, Distt. Haridwar, in Crl. Revision No.260/2004, is, not legally justified as per law and thus, liable to be quashed. In view of the above-said reasons, the present C482 petition is allowed. Order dated 6.6.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/First FTC, Roorkee, Dist. Haridwar in Crl. Revision No.260/2004, Motiram & others Vs. State & another, is hereby quashed. However, the liberty is given to the respondents 2 to 12 to avail the appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum. (D.V., J.) 09.07.2010 Rajeev Dang