Important pointHigh Court can entertain a petition ­under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code when there is serious miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of the court or when mandatory provisions of law were not complied with and when the High Court feel that the inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised to correct the mistake committed by the revisional court.

Judgment

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.—Leave granted.

2. These appeals are preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Brief facts of the case are thus.

3. A crime was registered against the appellant alleging that he committed the offences punishable under Section 406 and 428 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was a partner in a firm consisting of two partners, and the other partner, Zahir Ahmad, was the second accused before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The appellant and Zahir Ahmad were running a rice mill by the name, Jagdamba Rice Mills. Under the policy of the State Government, the Civil Supplies Corporation entrusted the paddy to M/s Jagdamba Rice Mills for de-husking. There was an agreement between the firm and the corporation in terms whereof the firm was to supply advance rice to the corporation. As per the complaint of the Civil Supplies Corporation, the Jagdamba Rice Mill failed to supply the advance paddy due to the corporation. According to the corporation, about 1440 tons of rice was outstanding against the firm. Based on the complaint of the corporation, a case was registered and a report was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magis­trate, Sangrur. The appellant, Kailash Verma filed an application for discharge alleging that he was only a sleeping partner and the entire business of the firm was being conducted by Zahir Ahmad, the co-accused. The appellant was discharged by the Chief Judicial Magis­trate. The Chief Judicial Magistrate was of the view that the allega­tion contained in the complaint was of civil nature and no criminal case was made out. The Chief Judicial Magistrate also observed that there was no prima facie case to show that the paddy was supplied to the accused and that there was shortage of rice supplied to the corpo­ration. The order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate was challenged by the corporation in a Revision filed before the Court of Sessions Judge, Sangrur. The Sessions Judge, after elaborately considering the question raised, upheld the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magis­trate. The Sessions Judge noticed the fact that the corporation had initiated arbitration proceedings against the Jagdamba Rice Mill and had also filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instru­ments Act and that the filing of the present complaint alleging com­mission of offences punishable under Section 406 and 428 IPC was an abuse of the process of court. The corporation filed a further Revi­sion before the High Court and by the impugned order the learned Single Judge set aside the order passed by the Additional Chief Judi­cial Magistrate, Sangrur, as well as the order passed by the Sessions Judge. This order is challenged before us.

4. We heard the counsel for the appellant, as also the counsel for the respondents. The counsel for the appellant contended that the respond­ent-corporation had already filed a Revision against the order of discharge passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and in view of Section 397(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the second Revision before the High Court was not maintainable and that the High Court seriously erred in entertaining the same. The counsel for the respond­ent-corporation, on the other hand, contended that the High Court exercised the power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code and that the High Court had inherent jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the Sessions Judge in Revision as there was serious miscarriage of justice. The counsel for the respondents submitted that the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code could be exercised by the High Court even in cases where the Revision was not maintainable under Section 397(3) of that Code.

5. In Krishnan & Anr. Vs. Krishnaveni & Anr. (1997) 4 SCC 241, this question came up for consideration. That was a case where the com­plaint was registered under Sections 420, 406 IPC. After inquiry, the police filed a report stating tha