An order passed under Section 144, Cr.P.C. cannot be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution when the proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. are pending. The proper remedy is to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the sessions court or the High Court, as the case may be, as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

K.A. Swami, C.J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 111. 1996 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 11552 of 1996, issuing a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pollachi to decide the proceedings under Section 145, Crl.P.C. on or before

2. No doubt, in the writ petition initially the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 27. 1996 in M.C.No. 74 of 1996 — Al passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pollachi extending the period of the order passed under Section 144, Crl.P.C. Subsequently, the prayer came to be amended and the following prayer was sought for:-

Pass appropriate Writs, Orders or Directions and more particularly a Writ of Declaration declaring that the order of the 1st respondent bearing G.O.Ms.No.917 Public (Law and Order-A) Department dated 18. 1996 referred to in the counter affidavit of the first respondent as illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently directing the 1st respondent to communicate the orders in M.C.No. 96 of 1996 issued under Section 145, Crl.P.C, and to pass such further or other orders. It is the amended prayer that has been considered by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge has held that G.O.Ms.No.917 Public (Law & Order -A) Department dated 18. 1996 cannot be quashed, because it is in the nature of an innocuous order as the proceedings under section 144, Crl.P.C. are pending.

3. We are of the view that the exercise of the jurisdiction under Art 226 of the Constitution in respect of order passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In addition to that, an order passed under Section 144, Crl.P.C. is also revisable by the Sessions Court or the High Court, under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revisional power under Section 397, Cr.P.C. is also very wide as it enables the High Court or the Sessions Court to examine the records of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situated within the local jurisdiction of the High Court or Sessions Court for the purpose of satisfying as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, or sentence or order recorded or passed and also the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior Court and to pass such orders as may be considered necessary. The Explanation to Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes the Executive Magistrate also as Inferior to the sessions Judge, for the purpose of Section 398, Cr.P.C. which enables the High Court or the Sessions Court to order enquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 or Sub-Section (4) of Section 204, or into the case of any person accused of offence who has been discharged. The Sessions Judge, under section 399 of the Crl.P.C. is also empowered to exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub-section (1) of Section 401 of the Crl. P.C. The revisional power under Section 401 of the Crl.P.C. is very wide. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is called for with the order passed under Section 144 of the Crl.P.C. when the proceedings under Section 145 of the Crl.P.C. are pending. The proper remedy, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the sessions court or the High Court, as the case may be, as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Gulam Abbas v. State of U.P. , 1982 (1) SCC 71 similar question arose. The Supreme Court, after holding that the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised has also held that the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution can be exercised, if the order passed under Section 144 of the Crl.P.C. or under Section 37 of the Bombay Police Act has the effect of violating or infringing with the fundamental right of a citizen. Therefore, in the instant case, there is no question of violatio