Point of Law: When an order under challenge is not interlocutory in nature and is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction, then inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not be exercised.

JUDGMENT :

SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Pradeep Tiwari, Advocate, who has filed power on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and Sri. S.P. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the following main relief:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 02.11.2020 passed by the Additional Session Judge Court No. 1, U/s 319 Cr.P.C. in Session Trial No. 277/2013, State of U.P. vs. Ram Kushal and Others related to Crime No. 383/2012, u/s 302, 201 of the I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar.”

3. This Court had earlier given time to learned counsel for the petitioner to produce case laws to the effect that even where a Criminal Revision is maintainable, a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be filed and entertained by the High Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before this Court a copy of the judgment rendered by Larger Bench of three Judges in Criminal Appeal No. 842 of 2016, Prabhu Chawla vs. State of Rajasthan and Another decided on 05.09.2016. Learned counsel has read out the judgment cited. It has been submitted that the appellants therein Prabhu Chawla, Jagdish Upasane and others had filed a Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2009 where the High Court of Rajasthan had dismissed the petitions preferred by the appellants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that they were not maintainable as the remedy under Section 397 Cr.P.C. of filing Criminal Revision was maintainable. The Division Bench which initially considered the Criminal Appeal had expressed prima facie opinion that the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan was against the law settled by Supreme Court in Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Another. The Division Bench however noticed a later Division Bench judgment in the case of Mohit alias Sonu and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another, wherein apparently contrary view was taken that when an order under challenge is not interlocutory in nature and is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction, then inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not be exercised. In view of such conflict, the matter was placed by the Chief Justice before the Larger bench of three judges for fresh consideration on merits regarding the scope of inherent powers available to the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. The Supreme Court observed that the Appeals had arisen out of Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. having been filed by the appellants before the High Court of Rajasthan against the order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in Complaint Case No. 1669 of 2006, whereby it had taken cognizance against the appellants under Section 228A of the I.P.C. and summoned them through bailable warrants to face proceedings in the case.

6. The Supreme Court in paragraph-5 of the judgment rendered in Prabhu Chawla (supra) has referred paragraph-10 of the judgment rendered in Raj Kapoor vs. State, 1980 (1) SCC 43 and observed thus:

“5. Mr. Goswami also placed strong reliance upon the judgment of Krishna Iyer, J. in a Division Bench in Raj Kapoor vs. State, (1980) 1 SCC 43 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 72. Relying upon the judgment of a Bench of three Judges in Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 10 and quoting therefrom, Krishna Iyer, J. in his inimitable style made the law crystal clear in Para-10 which runs as follows:

“10. The first question is as to whether the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 stands repelled when the revisional power under Section 397 overlaps. The opening words of Section 482 contradict this contention because nothing of the Code, not even Section 397, can affect the amplitude of the inherent power preserved in so many terms by the language of Section 482. Even so, a general principle pervades this branch o