The judgment established the principle that the inherent jurisdiction of the Court cannot be exercised against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.

1. This application is directed against an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda dated 30-3-1976 by which the learned Magistrate restored complaint case No. 301 (C) of 1975 which he had dismissed earlier.

2. The relevant facts for the purpose of this case are shortly these. On 13th of July, 1974 Chaukidar Hari Paswan gave an information at Silao (Nalanda) Police Station that at 9 P. M. he heard that a dead body was Iying in village Nirpur. The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and some others went to village Nirpur and recovered a headless dead body from the river. One Sheo Pd. Singh submitted a written report at Silao Police Station on the basis of which a first information report under Sec.303/261 of the I. P. C. was drawn up against unknown persons. During the investigation it transpired at first that the dead body was that of one Kapendra Singh, but after some time the said Kapendra Singh appeared before the police. Subsequently it was alleged that the dead body was that of Sheobalak Chamar, brother of opposite party No. 2, Saukhi Chamar. On 14-8-1975 the Police submitted final report in the base to the effect that the case was true but there was insufficient evidence.

3. Saukhi Chamar had filed a protest petition before the learned Magistrate on 28-10-1975. We are not very much concerned with this protest petition as on the same date namely 28th October, 1975 Saukhi Chamar filed a regular complaint petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate naming six persons including the petitioner as accused in the case. He alleged that there was illicit connection between one Hari Narain and wife of the deceased and it was because of that that the offence had been committed. Saukhi Chamar alleged that Hari Narain and others had taken away Sheobalak from his home and Sheobalak was not seen thereafter alive. Saukhi Chamar was examined on solemn affirmation on 29-10-1975. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the complainant to produce witnesses before him. It is alleged that two witnesses were produced on 12-12-1975 and the complainant also produced witnesses on 10-2-1976 but these witnesses were not examined. Thereafter, Saukhi Chamar tailed to produce the witnesses before the learned Magistrate on several succeeding dates. On 30th of July, 1977, therefore, the learned Magistrate passed an order dismissing the complaint.

4. Complainant Saukhi Chamar thereafter filed a petition that the accused persons including the petitioner be committed to the Court of Session on the basis of the statements recorded under Sec.164 of the Cr. P. C. during the investigation of the police case. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda, passed the following order on 30-8-1976:-

"This is a petition for restoration of the complaint case. It is said that a petition was filed in this case, but was tagged with the Police case of the same occurrence. Therefore, the complaint was ordered to be dismissed due to absence of the complainant. There appears to be a bona fide mistake therefore, the complaint is ordered to be restored. Put upon 17-9-1976 for further order".

The petitioner thereafter moved the learned Sessions Judge, Patna, in revision against the order of the learned Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision application on 5-3-1977. The petitioner, thereafter, has filed the present application under Sec. 482 of the Cr. P. C. for quashing the order of the learned Magistrate i.e. the order restoring the complaint.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of the learned Magistrate restoring the complaint was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Code did not empower him to recall his order and the Supreme Court has held in the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh V/s. Kali Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2432 that the Magistrate had no inherent jurisdiction in exercise of which he could recall the order.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party has raised a preliminary objection regarding the