Manoj Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State. The instant application has been filed seeking a direction to the courts below to consider the bail application of the applicant in pursuance of the First Information Report dated 03.12.2013 registered as Case Crime No. 1195 of 2013, under Section 25 Arms Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri on the same day in accordance with law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the applicant fairly stated that as on date, no proceeding in respect of the above case is pending before any Court. In the case of State of Punjab Vs. Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others, (2011) 14 SCC 770 it has been observed that an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lies before the High Court against an order passed by the courts subordinate to it in the pending case/proceedings, the relevant paragraphs 63 and 64 of the report is reproduced herein below: - 63. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lies before the High Court against an order passed by the court subordinate to it in a pending case/proceedings. Generally, such powers are used for quashing criminal proceedings in appropriate cases. Such an application does not lie to initiate criminal proceedings or set the criminal law in motion. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised if the order of the subordinate court results in the abuse of the "process" of the court and/or calls for interference to secure the ends of justice. The use of word "process" implies that the proceedings are pending before the subordinate court. When reference is made to the phrase "to secure the ends of justice", it is in fact in relation to the order passed by the subordinate court and it cannot be understood in a general connotation of the phrase. More so, while entertaining such application the proceedings should be pending in the subordinate court. In case it attained finality, the inherent powers cannot be exercised. The party aggrieved may approach the appellate/revisional forum. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised if injustice is done to a party e.g. a clear mandatory provision of law is overlooked or where different accused in the same case are being treated differently by the subordinate court. 64. An inherent power is not an omnibus for opening a Pandora's box, that too for issues that are foreign to the main context. The invoking of the power has to be for a purpose that is connected to a proceeding and not for sprouting an altogether new issue. A power cannot exceed its own authority beyond its own creation. It is not that a person is remediless. On the contrary, the constitutional remedy of writs is available................. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, referred to above, the application is misconceived and is dismissed as not maintainable. It would be open to the applicants to seek appropriate legal remedy available to him. ;