JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants/petitioners are questioning the order dated 13.2.2012 passed by the Single Bench in Civil Writ Petitions No.14805/11 and 14804/11. They have questioned the order of the criminal court in criminal revision pending before the Additional Sessions Judge by which cognisance has been taken against them and they have been summoned through non-bailable warrants on acceptance of protest petition vide order dated 9.9.2011. 2. In criminal revision, the revisional court has refused to grant interim relief vide order dated 7.10.2011. The criminal revision is stated to be pending before the revisional court. The order refusing to grant interim relief was questioned by way of filing writ petitions before the Single Bench. 3. The Single Bench has taken note of another similar order in which the revisional court has refused to grant interim relief to co-accused Nav Ratan Kothari vide common order dated 7.10.2011 against which, he has filed Criminal Misc. Petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. before this court which was dismissed vide detailed order dated 17.10.2011. The Single Bench has not interfered in the writ petitions; it has been observed that it would not be appropriate for the petitioners to invoke jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. However, the Single Bench at the same time, has permitted the petitioners to avail the remedy under section 482 Cr.P.C. and directed the Registry to treat both the writ petitions as having been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. and after converting the writ petitions into the petitions under section 482 Cr.P.C., they have been ordered to be listed before appropriate Bench. No opinion on merits has been expressed by the Single Bench. 4. Shri S.S. Hora learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/petitioners has submitted that petitioners are dominus litis to choose the process for quashment of the order passed by the revisional court; thus, the impugned order is bad in law. Writ petitions were obviously maintainable. The same have wrongly been ordered to be converted into petitions under section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. After hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, it is not a case where at the investigation stage itself, the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed. Writ petitions were obviously maintainable. The same have wrongly been ordered to be converted into petitions under section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. After hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, it is not a case where at the investigation stage itself, the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed. There is an order passed by the competent criminal court of taking cognizance against the petitioners and summoning them through non-bailable warrants which has been questioned in the pending revision petition before the revisional court. The criminal revision is still pending consideration. In such a matter where interim order of the criminal court has been questioned, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioners is under section 482 Cr.P.C.and not under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Taking note of similar order having been dealt with by this court under section 482 Cr.P.C. and final order has been passed on 17.10.2011, the Single Bench has declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction of this court. No opinion on merits has been expressed. In our considered opinion, the order passed by the Single Bench is appropriate. We find no ground so as to interfere in the appeals. 6. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed. Stay applications No. 1924/12 and 1925/12 are also dismissed.Appeals Dismissed. *******