The main legal point established in the judgment is that the only remedy available against the order issuing summon is to approach the High Court by way of petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri U. C. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned A. G. A.

( 2 ) THE present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuing writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 28. 1. 2003 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Aonla, district Bareilly and order dated 23. 3. 2006 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) passed by District/sessions judge Bareilly in case No. 547/2002 and Criminal Revision No. 199/2005, respectively. It was further prayed that the complaint case on the whole be quashed.

( 3 ) SMT. Sushila, opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint, which was registered as complaint case no. 547/2002 against the petitioners. On the said complaint, statement of witnesses were recorded under Section 202 Cr. P. C. and the Magistrate, after considering the evidence, summoned five petitioners under Section 498-A I. P. C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

( 4 ) AGAINST the said order, the petitioners filed a revision and the revisional court dismissed the said revision by order dated 23. 3. 2006, holding that in view of law laid down by Honble The apex Court, the revision is not maintainable.

( 5 ) THE learned A. G. A. submitted that petitioners have prayed for quashing of the revisional order as well, where as the revisional order is based on the law laid down by Honble The Apex Court. Any order can be quashed or set aside only when it is against the law.

( 6 ) A perusal of the order shows that the revisional court has cited few judgments of Honble The apex Court.

( 7 ) THE case of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and Ors. 2004 (50) ACC page 924 : In this judgment, the validity of K. M. Mathew v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1992 SC 2206, (1992) 94 BOMLR 63, 1992 Crilj 3779, 1991 (3) Crimes 820 (SC), 1992 (57) ELT 370 (SC), JT 1991 (4) SC 464, 1992 (1) KLT 1 (SC), (1992) 102 PLR35, 1991 (2) SCALE 1045, (1992) 1 SCC 217 , [1991] Supp2 SCR 364 was examined and the said judgment was reversed holding as under: it is true that if a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, issues process without there being any allegation against the accused or any material implicating the accused or in contravention of provision of Sections 200 and 202, the order of the Magistrate may be vitiated, but then the relief an aggrieved accused can obtain at that stage is not by invoking Section 203 of the Code because the Criminal Procedure Code does not contemplate a review of an order. Hence in the absence of any review power or inherent power with the subordinate Criminal Courts, the remedy lies in invoking Section 482 of Code.

( 8 ) IN the above judgment, Honble The Apex Court, while holding that the remedy lie in invoking Section 482 Cr. P. C. did not express any opinion regarding this fact whether order issuing process amounts to an interim order or not. Paragraph 16 of the said judgment runs as follows: in view of our above conclusion, it is not necessary for us to go into the question whether order issuing a process amounts to an interim order or not.

( 9 ) THE judgement of in the case of Adalat Prasad (Supra) again came up for consideration before honble The Apex Court in the matter of Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2005-Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 242 and the view was confirmed in spite of this fact that Adalat Prasad case (Supra) involved an offence triable in warrant case whereas K. M. Mathews case (supra) involved a summon case. This plea was raised before Honble The supreme Court, but Honble The Supreme Court rejected the said plea holding as follows: having considered the argument of the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the decision of this Court in adalat Prasad case requires reconsideration cannot be accepted. It is true that the case of adalat Prasad pertained to a warrant case w