We would like to begin this order by saying that “A repeated and saner thought will always throw more light even on the same subject”. More often in criminal cases a question that arose for consideration of the Courts, has been that, the object, scope and purpose of section 482 of Cr.P.C. and power of the Court to exercise the provision, in spite of availability of alternate remedy in general and under section 397 of Cr.P.C. in particular. In the present case, we are called upon to answer the same question.

2. Before adverting to the factual matrix of this case, we feel it appropriate to remind ourselves, certain recognized principles of interpretation of statutes.

3. In interpreting any statute or a provision in a statute, one should bear in the mind that statute is an authentic document containing, the intention and expression of the will of the legislature. The Court always bound to make its entire endeavor to bring out that real intention. Every provision of a statute should be construed with reference to its object, purpose, and how it is coached with other provisions of the same statute. Courts should also in its wisdom interpret the law to make the same more effective, meaningful and beneficial, and to achieve its manifest purpose. While interpreting a provision, a construction which would reduce the legislation or the provision a futility, such interpretation should be avoided. Where alternative construction is equally open that should be chosen which is harmonious, and closer to the purpose and object of the introduction of that provision in the statute.

4. With the above prelude, we feel it appropriate, and necessary to make a comprehensive appreciation of all vital features of section 482 and 397 of Cr.P.C.

5. The factual narration for disposal of the present petition has in a very narrow compass briefly stated the facts are, This Petition is filed before the learned Single Judge of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the order dated 24.7.2014 passed by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Tumkur taking cognizance of the offences punishable u/ss.323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and issuing process against the petitioners in CC No.3947/2014.

6. Learned Single Judge while considering the matter has referred two judgments of this court rendered by another bench of equal strength (Single Judge) i.e.,

(1) in Sri Rudra Swamy Vs. State of Karnataka and another in Criminal Petition No.3636/2015 and

(2) in Sri Santosh Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.5411/2015.

In the above mentioned two Criminal Petitions, it is observed that as the alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the party u/s.397 of Cr.PC., the petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC. have to be dismissed without delving upon the merits of the cases. In those cases, reliance was mainly placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of –

(1) Urmila Devi Vs. Yudhvir Singh reported in (2013) 15 SCC 624;

(2) Mohit @ Sonu and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2013) 7 SCC 789.

In view of the above said two decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, Learned Single Judge in Crl. Petition No.3636/2015 and Crl. Petition No.5411/2015, has expressed doubt with regard to the maintainability of the petition u/s.482 of Cr.PC. when an alternative remedy u/s.397 of the Code is available.

7. The learned Single Judge in this Petition relying upon the decisions reported in (1) (2004) 13 SCC 324 between Subramanium Sethuraman Vs. State of Maharashtra and another; and (2) 2009(2) SCC 370 between Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd., and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another;

concluded that the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Criminal Petition No.3636/2015 and Criminal Petition No.5411/2015 requires a relook by an authoritative judicial pronouncement. Therefore, the registry is directed to place the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice to refer the matter to the l