1. The order under challenge in this petition filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. is proceedings at Anx.A-2, whereby the complaint of the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against R-1 herein (accused) was dismissed by virtue of the enabling provisions conferred under Sec.204(4) of the Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Sri.G.Hariharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent State. In the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to R-1 (accused) will stand dispensed with.

3. This Court is not inclined to entertain this petition for reasons more than one. Firstly, what is challenged herein is Anx.II proceedings, which is only certified copy of all the proceedings issued by the learned Magistrate in relation to the present complaint (S.T.No. 237/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Peermade). As per Anx.II proceedings sheet, proceedings from various dates from 3.8.2016 are shown therein and in respect of proceedings on 20.5.2017, it is endorsed therein as follows:

“Complainant absent. No representation. Steps not taken so far. Complaint dismissed u/s.204(4) Cr.P.C.”

4. Anx.II is only the proceedings sheet, which is one prepared by the magistrate court concerned showing the details of the proceedings in the various dates concerned. The petitioner has not produced the certified copy of the impugned order dated 20.5.2017 passed by the learned Magistrate in this case. There are no extraordinary circumstances in the facts of this case which would justify such an action on the part of the petitioner complainant in not following the prescribed procedure, whereby the litigant is expected to produce certified copy of the impugned order for raising necessary challenge in an appropriate manner. No reasons are given by the petitioner for not producing the certified copy of the impugned order. For this reason alone, this Court is not inclined to consider the plea contained in this petition.

5. Secondly, it can be seen that the impugned proceedings is one dismissing the complaint by virtue of the enabling powers under Sec.204(4) of the Cr.P.C. and this amounts to termination of the impugned criminal proceedings. Such an order, which is directly resulting in the termination of the impugned criminal proceedings, will be a final order and not interlocutory. Sec. 397 of the Cr.P.C. deals with the powers of revision conferred on the High Courts and Sessions Courts. Sec. 397(2) provides as follows:

“Sec. 397: Calling for records to exercise powers of revision

xxx xxx xxx

(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding”

Therefore, the bar in Sec.397(2) does not arise in the facts of this case. So the impugned order is revisable in terms of Sec.397 of the Cr.P.C. The concurrent jurisdiction is conferred on the High Courts as well as Sessions Courts in terms of Sec. 397 of the Cr.P.C. and the High Courts' powers of revision are explicitly referred to in Sec.401 of the Cr.P.C.

6. Ordinarily, when a statutory remedy is provided in terms of the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure or special statute concerned, then it may not be proper to take recourse to the extra ordinary inherent powers conferred on this Court under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. This is only a rule of judicial caution and this wholesome principle of judicial norm of self restraint is not a bar against exercise of jurisdiction conferred under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. The said position has been made clear in many rulings of the Apex Court as in PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, FARIDKOT v. SHREE DURGA JI TRADERS AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2012 SC 700 = 2011 (14) SCC 615, wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that availability of an alternate remedy per se and by