( 1 ) THIS is an application under S. 482, Cr. P. C. praying that the order of the Sessions Judge dated 6-10-1988 in revision and the Summoning order dated 11-8-1986 of the Judicial Magistrate, Meerut as well as the prosecution of the applicants in complaint Case No. 2185 of 1986 be quashed.

( 2 ) A preliminary objection was raised by the State Counsel before the learned single Judge who heard this application that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajan Kumar Manchanda v. State of Karnataka, 1988 All Cri C 54 the case of Khem Singh v. Nathoo Ram Sharma 1978 All Cri C 262 did not lay down good law and this application was not maintainable.

( 3 ) THE learned Single Judge accordingly referred the undermentioned two question for consideration by a larger Bench : (1) Whether the law laid down by this Court in Khem Singh v. Nathoo Ram Sharma, 1978 All Cri C 262 is good law, in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Raja Kumar Manchanda v. State of Karnataka, 1988 All Cri C 54; and (2) Whether in a case where an application under S. 397, Cr. P. C. has been made by any party in the Court of Session and the application is decided against him, it is open to that party to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under S. 482, Cr. P. C. in any case seek redress against that order, despite the bar created in Sub-Section (3) of S. 397 of the said Code.

( 4 ) WE are required to answer these questions.

( 5 ) IN the case of Khem Singh v. Nathoo Ram Sharma (supra) an application under S. 482, Cr. P. C. 1973 was filed in the High Court praying that the order of the Additional Munsif-Magistrate discharging the accused respondents in a complaint case under Ss. 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471, I. P. C. be set aside. Before filing the application in the High Court the applicant had filed a revision in the Court of Session which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge. The learned single Judge who heard that application referred the undermentioned question for decision to a Bench :"whether in a case where an application under S. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been made by any party in the Court of Session and the application is decided against him it is open to that party to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to seek redress against that order despite the provision contained in Sub-Sec. (3) of S. 397 and Sub-Sec. (3) S. 399 of the Code. "

( 6 ) IT was held by Bench that "sub-Section (3) of Section 397 of the new Code will not prevent a party from invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the new Code in a proper case covered by Section 482 of the new Code. "

( 7 ) IN order to determine whether the case of Khem Singh v. Nathoo Ram Sharma (1978 All Cri C 262) (supra) lays down good law it is necessary to examine the provisions of Section 397 and 399, Cr. P. C. first.

( 8 ) IT appears from a plain reading of Section 397 (1), Cr. P. C. that the High Court and the Sessions judge have been conferred concurrent powers of revision. Section 397 (2), Cr. P. C. provides that the powers of revision conferred by Sub-Sec. (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings. S. 397 (3), Cr. P. C. gives an option to a person to make an application in revision under S. 397 (1), Cr. P. C. either before the High Court or to the Sessions Judge but provides that no further application in revision made by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them. It is mentioned in S. 399 (3), Cr. P. C. that if an application in revision is made by any person before a Sessions Judge the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon in relation to such person shall be final and no revision at the instance of such a person shall be entertained by the High Court.

( 9 ) IN the case of Rajan Kumar Manchanda v. State of Karnataka (1988) All C