High Courts can exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent injustice, even if alternate remedies are available.

ORDER :

MUKESH RAJPUROHIT, J.

1. The instant Misc. Petition under Sections 528 BNSS (482 Cr.PC.) has been filed against the order dated 18.08.2022 passed by the learned ACJM, No.1, Bhilwara in Case No. 4347/2012, whereby the learned magistrate took cognizance of the protest application filed against the FIR 542/2019 registered at P.S. Kotwali, Bhilwara.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant. Perused the material available on record.

3. Bereft of elaborate details briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the respondent no.4, the complainant, lodged a complaint in the year 2019 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC . The allegation therein was that the brother of the complainant, namely Dr. Vinod Choudhary (the present petitioner), in connivance with certain other persons, fraudulently sold ancestral property, including the complainant’s share therein to one Navratan Surya, on the strength of a forged and fabricated compromise deed purportedly submitted before a court of law.

Pursuant to the said complaint, an investigation was conducted; however, the police submitted a final negative report, opining that the dispute relates to the distribution of ancestral property, and is of a civil nature. Aggrieved by the filing of the negative report, the respondent–complainant preferred a protest petition under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C, seeking re-investigation of the matter. The learned Trial Court, upon consideration, took cognizance of the protest petition and directed a re-investigation into the criminal complaint.

4. Assailing the aforesaid order of cognizance and re-investigation, the present petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, seeking quashing and setting aside of the order dated 18.08.2022 passed by the learned ACJM Court No. 01, Bhilwara in Case No. 4347/2012 titled Rajesh Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to delve into the merits of the case.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, before going into any merits of the case has challenged the base of the present petitioner and the manner in which it is filed. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has wrongly approached the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C when an alternate remedy is available to him under u/s 397 of Cr.P.C., therefore, the present petition is not maintainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has then relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Maharastra & Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2055 of 2007 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2272 of 2007) dated 17^th December 2008, wherein the court said:

“8. Indisputably issuance of summons is not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397 of the Code. This Court in a large number of decisions beginning from R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 to Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka, [ (2008) 3 SCC 574 ] has laid down the criterion for entertaining an application under Section 482 . Only because a revision petition is maintainable, the same by itself, in our considered opinion, would not constitute a bar for entertaining an application under of the Code. Even where a revision application is barred, as for example the remedy by way of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 this Court has held that the remedies under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India would be available. (See Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Cha