JUDGMENT :

Shree Prakash Singh, J.

1. At the very outset, Sri Kailash Nath Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has raised a preliminary objection that this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable against the order dated 06-04-2023 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gonda.

2. He added that the impugned order has been passed while invoking the jurisdiction under section 319 of Cr.P.C. and it's not an interlocutory order and the same is revisable and therefore invoking the inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is barred as the inherent power can be invoked, when there is no overt or express provision in the Criminal Procedure Code or otherwise any alternative remedy is available.

3. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Mohit alias Sonu and Another Versus State of U.P. and Another(Criminal Appeal No. 814 of 2013) decided on 1st July, 2013 and has referred paragraph no. 23 of the aforesaid Judgment, which is quoted hereinunder :-

"23. So far as the inherent power of the High Court as contained in Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, the law in this regard is set at rest by this Court in a catena of decisions. However, we would like to reiterate that when an order, not interlocutory in nature, can be assailed in the High Court in revisional jurisdiction, then there should be a bar in invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. In other words, inherent power of the Court can be exercised when there is no remedy provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure for redressal of the grievance. It is well settled that inherent power of the court can ordinarily be exercised when there is no express provision in the Code under which order impugned can be challenged."

4. Relying on the aforesaid, he submits that the Apex Court has reiterated that if an order is not interlocutory, the same can be assailed in the High Court, in revisional jurisdiction and therefore, the remedy of revision is available to the applicant and invoking inherent powers in such conditions is barred, thus the instant application may be dismissed on this ground alone.

5. Per contra, Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the ratio of the Judgment in Mohit alias Sonu & Another(Supra) is not a good law and he has placed reliance on the Judgment rendered in Prabhu Chawla Vs. State of Rajasthan & and Anr., reported in ABC 2016 (II) 126 SC and has referred paragraph nos.6 & 7 of the said Judgement, which are quoted hereinunder :-

"6. In our considered view any attempt to explain the law further as regards the issue relating to inherent power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is unwarranted. We would simply reiterate that Section 482 begins with a non-obstante clause to state: “Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effectto any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” A fortiori, there can be no total ban on the exercise of such wholesome jurisdiction where, in the words of Krishna Iyer, J. “abuse of the process of the Court or other extraordinary situation excites the court’s jurisdiction. The limitation is self-restraint, nothing more.” We venture to add a further reason in support. Since Section 397 Cr.P.C. is attracted against all orders other than interlocutory, a contrary view would limit the availability of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only to petty interlocutory orders! A situation wholly unwarranted and undesirable.

"7. As a sequel, we are constrained to hold that the Division Bench, particularly in paragraph 28, in the case of Mohit alias Sonu and another(supra) in respect of inherent power of the High Court in Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. does not state the law correctly. We r