This petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C has been filed for quashing the first information report dated 31- 12-97 lodged at police station Bhojpur, district Ghaziabad having case crime No. 185/1997 under Sections 177, 407,408,420 and 468, I. P. C. on the ground that the F. I. R. does not disclose any of fence and the controversy is purely of a civil nature.

2. The learned A. G. A. raised prelimi nary plea that since charge- sheet has not been submitted the petition is not main tainable in view of the pronouncement of the Division Bench of this Court in A. S. Bindra v. Senior Superintendent of Police & Ors. , Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1342 of 1997 decided on 16-12-97. The Division Bench held that the law Laid down in Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Lal Yadava v. State of U. P. , 1989 Cr. LJ. 1013: 1989 JIC (All) (FB), still holds good and no contrary view was taken by the Supreme Court.

3. The learned Counsel for the ap plicants contended that Supreme Court has held that the inherent powers of High Court can be invoked even before submis sion of the report under Section 173, Cr. P. C. and since any law, Laid down by the Supreme Court is law of the land it has binding effect on all subordinate Courts under Article 141 of the Constitution.

4. Section 482, of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or effect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give

effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.

5. It is an age old and well established principle that every Court has inherent powers to Act exdebitojustitiae to do that a real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent abuse of process of the Court. The Section 482, Cr. P. C. docs not confer any new or additional power as the principle, upon which it is based, was acted upon in many earlier decisions. The heading "saving of inherent powers of High Court" indicates statutory recognition of the in herent powers, which were already exist ing, have been preserved. It is inserted lest it should be considered that the only powers possessed by the Court are those expressly conferred by the Court and no inherent power has survived the passing of Code of Criminal Procedure. The inherent powers of the High Court preserved by Section 482, Cr. P. C. are vested in it by law within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. The procedure for invoking the inherent powers is regulated by rules framed by the High Court.

6. The powers under Section 482, Cr. P. C. are very wide and notwithstanding anything in the Code the inherent powers can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court. It was held by Full Bench decision of thesupreme Court inkrishnan & Ors. v. Krishna Veni&anr. , J. T. 1997 (1) S. C 657: 1997 JIC 406 (SC), that the inherent power of the High Court is preserved by Section 482, Cr. R. C and is very wide. However, High Court must ex ercise such power sparingly and cautious ly, if it is noticed that there has been failure of justice or misuse of the judicial mechanism or procedure or sentence or orders is not correct, it is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of process of Court or mis- carriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incor rectness committed by inferior Court in its Judicial power process or illegality of sentence or order.

7. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid pronouncement held that in herent powers can be exercised even if the party had unsuccessfully challenged the order in revisional jurisdiction. The scope of the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P. C. and exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitu tion was considered by the Supreme Court in State of Hatyana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Crl L. J. 527. After considering the interpreta tion of the various relevant provisions