IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.30 OF 2010 Smt. Shakuntala Devi ……… Revisionist Versus State and another …... Respondents Dated: July 30, 2010 Mr. S.K. Shandiliya, Advocate for the revisionist Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State Mr. Raman Kumar Sah, Advocate for respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred under section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.1.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No.279 of 2009, Smt. Sharmila v. State of Uttarakhand. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on file. 3. Brief facts of the case are that revisionist Smt. Shakuntala Devi filed a complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar and got registered a complaint case no.1275 of 2008 against the respondent no.2 Smt. Sharmila @ Sonia, relating to offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC. The complainant in support of her complaint examined herself u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Umesh Pandey and Kishan Kumar were got examined. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the material available, learned Ist Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, vide order 2 dated 18.2.2009 summoned the respondent no.2 to face the trial. Feeling aggrieved with the said summoning order, the respondent no.2 preferred a revision before Sessions Judge, Haridwar, who, vide his judgment and order dated 7.1.2010 allowed the revision of respondent no.2 and quashed the summoning order dated 18.2.2009. Against the said judgment and order dated 7.1.2010, the revisionist/complainant has preferred the present revision before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist solely argued that as per judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and others reported in (2004) 7 S.C.C. 338”, against the summoning order, only a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable. As such, the judgment and order dated 7.1.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar, against the summoning order, is without jurisdiction. Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for the State and Mr. Raman Kumar Sah, learned counsel for respondent no.2 has also conceded to this point. 5. In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 7.1.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in criminal revision no.279 of 2009, is hereby set aside. However, the respondent no.2 is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum. (Dharam Veer, J.) 30.7.2010 RG