The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC cannot be exercised in regard to matters specifically covered by other provisions of the CrPC.

1.This petition under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short, the Code) and under Art.227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Krishan Lal for setting aside the order, dated 12-9-1975, whereby the complaint filed by him against Smt. Parvatu and 10 others under Ss. 323/504/506/430/147/149 IPC was dismissed. The petitioner has prayed for issue of a direction to the court below to proceed with the further enquiry of the case.

2. The complaint as filed by Krishan Lal is that there is a water channel which irrigates the fields of the petitioner as also of the respondents in village Khajrota of Tehsil Arki. The petitioners father has got a right to the extent of half share for taking the water for irrigating his land, whereas the other half share belongs to the other co-sharers.

3. It is alleged that on 28th May 1974, the complainant had gone to his fields to water them. It is stated that while he was irrigating the fields, that in the meanwhile Smt. Parvatu one of the accused arrived at the scene and she diverted the course of the water of the channel. The complainant restrained her from doing so, but she did not abstain. On the contrary, she started hurling abuses on the complainant and in the meanwhile Ghaniya also came there and both the accused caught hold of the complainant and gave him beatings with fists and threw him down on the ground. Immediately after the other accused also arrived at the scene with a criminal intention to commit the offence and they also pounced upon him and that he was given severe beatings. After that on his cries his father, his mother and others reached there at the spot and extricated him from the clutches of the accused. Thereafter it is stated that he filed a report in the police station on 30th May, 1974. The police made an enquiry into the case but they did not put up the challan in the court. On the contrary, the accused persons who also apprehended that they would be prosecuted at the instance of the petitioner also filed a report with the police and in which the police after a probe put up a challan. Therefore, the petitioner filed this complaint for offences under the aforesaid sections on 10-7-1975.

4. The learned Magistrate recorded the statements of the complainant and two other witnesses in support of the complainant, but he was not satisfied that there was any truth in the complaint. According to him, the statements of the witnesses suffered from lot of infirmities, inasmuch as there were material contradictions and, therefore he dismissed the complaint under S.203 of the Code on 22-9-1975. It is against this order that the complainant has filed this petition both invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court as also by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution.

5. Learned counsel for the State raised a preliminary objection that this revision petition was not competent, inasmuch as the petitioner failed to first approach the Sessions Judge because the revisional jurisdiction under Ss.397 and 398 of the Code is concurrent both of the High Court and the Sessions Judge. Therefore, in these circumstances the petitioner should have in the first instance approached the Sessions Judge and not come direct to the High Court and hence such a course was not warranted and he placed reliance on Gulam Ali v. State (1972 Cri L.J. 551) (Him Pra), and Vijay Pat v. State through Delhi Administration, Delhi (1972 Cri. L.J. 543) (Delhi). There can be no dispute with the principle laid down in these authorities, but the instance case is a petition not under Ss.397 and 398, rather it is a petition under S.482. and Art.227 of the Constitution, and, therefore, this preliminary objection is misconceived.

6. Shri Bhawani Singh learned counsel for the other respondents also raised a preliminary objection to the effect that this petition was not maintainable in view of the specific provision in the Code, i.e. S.398 which provided for the exercise of