( 1 ) GHEEWALA J. These petitions are directed against the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 17 in Criminal Case No. 757/75 on his file. The opponent no. 1 Premilaben Patel had filed a complaint against the present petitioners. The petitioners were and are serving as Police officers in various cadres. In the said complaint it was inter alia contended that during the antireservation disturbances which were prevalent in the Gujarat State in general and more particularly in Ahmedabad city during the month of April four petitioners who were cited as accused had beaten the complainant and hence she filed a complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 17 for offences punishable under sec. 147 145 307 325 read with sec. 149 of the I. P. Code and 114 of I. P. Code. The said complaint came to be filed on 12-4-1985. Her verification was recorded on the same day and on the same day she gave an application that the accused had tried to kill her and if they were allowed to enter the Asharawa area then once again they would try to do the same and hence pending the hearing of the complaint and till the same was disposed of they should be prevented from entering Asharwa area. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order below the said application in following terms:"heard The complainant has been examined on oath. Considering the circumstances mentioned I am of the opinion that the accused be restrained from entering the limits of Asharawa Police chawky. Yadi be written to the Commissioner of Police". Pursuant to the said order by outward No. 204 of 1985 of even date communication was sent to the Police Commissioner. By these two petitions the said order has been challenged and it is prayed that the order and outward No. 204 of 1985 written pursuant to the said order to the Police Commissioner be quashed. Initially the State of Gujarat was cited as a petitioner but subsequently it was transposed as opponent No.

( 2 ) ). 2 Mr. J. U. Mehta the learned P. P. appearing on behalf of the State of Gujarat urged that the complaint was being inquired into by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under sec. 2u2 of Cr. P. Code and the court had no jurisdiction to pass the order that it passed. The learned Advocate General appearing for the petitioners urged that the Police Officers who have been cited as an accused and who have been petitioners before this court were discharging their duties and the learned Advocate General urged that a blanket order restraining the Police Officers from entering particular area would virtually tantamount to exercising jurisdiction which the court did not possess. Such an order could have been passed only in the exercise of some inherit jurisdiction vested ill the court and while under sec. 482 of Cr. P. Code the High Court does possess such inherent jurisdiction no inherent jurisdiction is vested in the criminal court subordinate to the High Court and hence the order was ex-facie bad and it should be passed are the communication of even date bearing outward No. 204/1985 should also be quashed.

( 3 ) THE learned Advocate General in support of his contention drew my attention to sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code whereunder the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice have been safe-guarded. The learned Advocate General further urged that regarding such inherent power there is no provision to be found in the entire Code which might even rental give an idea that the subordinate courts of Criminal Jurisdiction posses such inherent powers. Mr. Thakore therefore urged that an order passed by the learned Magistrate was beyond his jurisdiction beyond his competence and as such requires to be quashed.

( 4 ) THE learned Advocate General drew any attention to 14th and 41 report of the Law Commi