IMPORTANT POINTS
Section 397 does not bar exercise of inherent power u/s 482.
Only because a revision petition is maintainable, the same by itself, would not constitute a bar for entertaining an application u/s 482.
High Court can exercise its inherent power u/s 482 where abuse of the process of the court or other extraordinary situation excites the court's jurisdiction. Limitation on exercise of this power is self restraint, nothing more.
Since section 397 attracted against all orders other than interlocutory, a contrary view would limit the availability of inherent powers under Section 482 only to petty interlocutory orders – a situation wholly unwarranted and undesirable.

JUDGMENT

Shiva Kirti Singh, J. –

Leave granted.

2. First we take up appeals of Prabhu Chawla and Jagdish Upasane and ors. as these two criminal appeals seek to assail a common order dated 02.04.2009 whereby the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed the petitions preferred by the appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity `Cr.P.C.'). High Court held the petitions to be not maintainable in view of judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Sanjay Bhandari v. State of Rajasthan, 2009 (1) CrLR (Raj.) 282 (impugned in the other connected appeal) holding that availability of remedy under Section 397 Cr.P.C. would make a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. not maintainable.

3. While considering all these matters at the SLP stage, on 05.07.2013, a Division Bench found the impugned order of the High Court to be against the law stated inDhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2009) 2 SCC 370. In that case the Division Bench concurred with the proposition of law that availability of alternative remedy of criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. by itself cannot be a good ground to dismiss an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. But it noticed that a later Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mohit alias Sonu and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2013) 7 SCC 789 apparently held to the contrary that when an order under assail is not interlocutory in nature and is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court then there should be a bar in invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. In view of such conflict, these cases were directed to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for reference to a larger Bench and that is how the matters are before this Bench for resolving the conflict.

4. The facts of these appeals need not detain us because in our considered opinion the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the impugned order is contrary to law and therefore matters will have to be remanded back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits within the scope of inherent powers available to the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It would suffice to note that in both these appeals, the miscellaneous petitions before the High Court arose out of an order dated 30.11.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur in the complaint no. 1669 of 2006, whereby it took cognizance against the appellants under Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code and summoned them through bailable warrants to face further proceedings in the case.

5. Mr. P.K. Goswami learned senior advocate for the appellants supported the view taken by this Court in the case Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. (supra). He pointed out that in paragraph 6 of this judgment Justice S. B. Sinha took note of several earlier judgments of this Court including that in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 and Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka,(2008) 3 SCC 574 for coming to the conclusion that "only because a revision petition is maintainable, the same by itself, ........., would not constitute a bar for entertaining an application under Section 482 of the Code." Mr. Goswami also placed strong reliance upon judgment of Krishna Iyer, J. in a Division Bench in the case of Raj Kapoor and Ors v. State and Ors, (1980) 1 SCC 43. Relying upon judgment of a Bench of three Judges in the case of Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 and quoting therefrom, Krishna Iyer, J. in his inimitable style made the law crystal clear in paragraph 10 which runs as follows:

"10. The first question is as to whether the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 stands repelled when the revisional power under Section 397 overlaps. The opening words of Section 482 contradict this contention because nothing of the Code, not even Section 397, can affect the amplitude of the inherent power preserved in so many terms by the