IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of process, and these powers operate concurrently with Article 227 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Mathur, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for opposite party no.1 State.

2. Issue notice to opposite party no.2, returnable at an early date.

3. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging summoning order dated 16.11.2023 as well as proceedings of Complaint Case No.326 of 2019; Amjad Khan versus Manoj Yadav & Ors., under Sections 420, 452, 504 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station Babina, District Jhansi as well as order dated 29.08.2024 passed in Criminal Revision Case No.42 of 2024; Manoj Yadav & Ors. versus State of U.P. & Ors.

4. Also under challenge is the revisional order dated 29.08.2024 whereby Criminal Revision preferred by the applicants has been rejected.

5. At the very outset, learned Additional Government Advocate has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the submission that in view of the fact that summoning order as well as revisional order is under challenge, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable since applicants have an alternative and equally efficacious remedy of filing of petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India. Learned Additional Government Advocate has taken recourse to Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. and the Bar contained therein to submit that in cases where a second revision is not maintainable, the applicants cannot take recourse a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to bye pass the Bar created in the aforesaid provision.

6. Learned counsel for applicants has refuted submissions advanced by learned Additional Government Advocate with the submission that proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr.P.C. are concurrent in nature for the purposes of exercising supervisory control over the trial courts and therefore one provision will not oust the other. It is further submitted that since Section 482 Cr.P.C. commences with a non obstante clause, it would prevail over other provisions of Cr.P.C. including the bar of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has adverted to the following judgements:-

"(i.) Madhu Limaye versus The State of Maharashtra; (1977)4 SCC 551,

(ii) Krishnan & Anr. v. Krishnaveni & Anr.; AIR 1997 SC 987, and

(iii) Prabhu Chawla versus State of Rajasthan & Anr.; AIR 2016 SC 4245"

7. With regard to submissions of learned Additional Government Advocate, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Madhu Limaye versus The State of Maharashtra; (1977)4 SCC 551, Krishnan & Anr. v. Krishnaveni & Anr.; AIR 1997 SC 987, and Prabhu Chawla versus State of Rajasthan & Anr.; AIR 2016 SC 4245 has already held that since provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. commence with a non obstante clause, it would have primacy over all the other provisions of the aforesaid Court including the bar of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. Law enunciated in the case of Madhu Limaye (supra) is as follows:

"10. As pointed out in Amar Nath's case (supra) the purpose of putting a bar on the power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in an appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding, is to bring about expeditious disposal of the cases finally. More often than not, the revisional power of the High Court was resorted to in relation to interlocutory orders delaying the final disposal of the proceedings. The Legislature in its wisdom decided to check this delay by introducing sub-section (2) in Section 397. On the one hand, a bar has been put in the way of the High Court (as also of the Sessions Judge) for exercise of the revisional power in relation to any interlocutory order, on the other, the power has been conferred in almost the same terms as it was in the 1898 Code. On a plain reading of Section 482, however, it would follow that nothing in the Code, which would include sub-section (2) of Section 397 also, "shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court", But, if we were to say that