The High Court's inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised when an alternative remedy exists, and such powers should only be invoked in compelling circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Sri Azhar Ikram and Sri Aseem Goswami, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Nikhil Singh, learned AGA, Sri Jasveer Singh Bakshi/complainant appear in person and Sri Anil K. Tripathi, who has filed Vakalatnama today on behalf of complainant, same is taken on record.

2. By means of this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S., 2023, the applicant prayed that the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1172/2018; Jasbeer Singh vs. Sardar Jasvender Singh and others , under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station Alambagh, District Lucknow be set-aside/ quashed and during the pendency of this application, the aforesaid proceeding may be stayed.

3. Strong objection has been raised by Sri Nikhil Singh, learned AGA placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in re Vipin Sahni and another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation , 2024 (2) ACR 952 (SC) referring paras-15, 23, 25 & 26, whereby the Apex Court considering various dictums of the Apex Court, precisely held that when the specific remedy of revision is available, it could not have been ignored and have filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. The Apex Court in re: Mohit alias Sonu and another vs. State of U.P. and another , (2013) 7 SCC 789 , vide para- 28 has held that the 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. Supreme Court further held that it is well settled that the 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. Precisely, the view of the Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid judgments is that if there is alternative, statutory and efficacious remedy available, that should not be ignored and though the inherent power of the High Court is unlimited, but at the same time the Apex Court has held in Catena of cases that the remedy under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be invoked sparingly and with caution.

5. Replying the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards the dictum of Apex Court in re: Prabhu Chawla vs. State of Rajasthan and others , MANU/SC/0979/2016 wherein the Apex Court in paras- 4, 5 & 6 has observed that though on account of revisional power being available to the litigant, he may approach the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but such power of the High Court should be invoked sparingly. In para-5 in re: Prabhu Chawla (Supra) referring para-10 in re: Madhu Limaye vs. the State of Maharashtra , (1977) 4 SCC 551 the Apex Court has observed that "even so, a general principle pervades this branch of law when a specific provision is made: easy resort to inherent power is not right except under compelling circumstances, not that there is absence of jurisdiction but that inherent power should not invade areas set apart for specific power under the same Code."

6. The perusal of both the aforesaid judgments make it crystal clear that in a recent judgment in re: Vipin Sahni vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Supra) the Apex Court has clearly held that ignoring the revisional jurisdiction one should not approach the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. invoking inherent jurisdiction. The Apex Court in catena of cases has held that the alternative, statutory and efficacious remedy may not be circumvented in normal circumstances and if there is any extreme and unavoidable circumstances, the litigant appears to be remedy-less, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is always available. Those extreme circumstances are not visible in the present case, therefore, I find that this applic