The sole petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.19 of 2013. He seeks for quashment of C.C.No.19 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad against him for the offences under Section 409 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the P.C.Act, for short).

2. Before going into the question whether C.C.No.19 of 2013 deserves to be quashed or otherwise, I may answer the question whether the petitioner should be directed to approach the Trial Court and seek for the relief of discharge. In PADAL VENKATA RAMA REDDY v. KOVVURI SATYANARAYANA REDDY, the Supreme Court noticed:

13. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific provisions provided under the Code [vide Kavita v. State (2000 Cri LJ 315 (Del)) and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana ((2003) 4 SCC 675)]. If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers under this section, specially when th