- (1.) D. C. Srivastava, J. Since affidavits have been exchanged, this petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage.
(2.) THE prayer in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Proce dure is to quash the proceedings in Case No. 3548 of 1995 (Amur Singh v. Mis. Uniroyal Textile Industries Ltd. and others) under Sec tions 409 and 4201. P. C. , pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Vlth Kanpur Nagar, in so far as it relates to the petitioner Ashok Kumar Srivastava. Prayer for interim order has also been made, but since the petition is being finally disposed of, the prayer for interim order hardly requires consideration. The brief facts are that a complaint under the aforesaid Sections 409 and 420 I. P. C. was filed against the petitioner and two others. Statement of the complainant was recorded by the learned Magistrate under section 200 Cr. P. C. and after con sidering the material on record, an order dated 2nd December, 1995, Annexure-8 popularly known as summoning order was passed against the petitioner and two others. The allegation in the complaint was that the complainant submitted one ap plication along with bank draff of Rs. 2500 in the main branch of Canara Bank, Mall Road, Kanpur on 1st December, 1994 for purchasing the shares of Uniroyal Textile Industries Ltd. , accused No. 1. Accused No. 2, Manager, Canara Bank was an authorised agent of accused No. 1 for receiving forms and transmitting the same along with the bank draft for allotment of shares. Accused No. 3 was also agent of accused No. 2, Manager, Uniroyal Textile Industries Ltd. The complainant neither received the shares nor refund of this money. He made repeated efforts. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 gave contradictory reply regarding statement of forms and money received from accused no. 3. In spite of all efforts the complaint failed in getting the shares or in getting refund of his money. It was alleged that from the letter of accused No. 2, it was clear that the bank draft was not remitted to accused Nos. 1 and 2 by accused No. 3, who is petitioner in this case. It was fu; her alleged that the third accused in collusion and conspiracy with cash other, had dis-honestly misappropriated Rs. 2500 of the petitioner and have cheated him. Number of documents have been filled along with this petition.
(3.) IN the counter-affidavit, assertions made in the affidavit have been con troverted and it has been pleaded that Sec tion 482, Cr. P. C. is not applicable and no petition under this section can be enter tained nor the defence can be seen at this stage. It is further deposed in the counter affidavit that it is open to the applicant to raise issues before the trial court as the summoning order was ex pane order. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it can be observed at the first in stance that inherent jurisdiction under Sec tion 482, Cr. P. C. is to be sparingly exercised. It is a provision like Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If there is specific provision in the Code of Criminal Proce dure for getting a relief, the same should be availed of and not that straightaway request should be made for exercise of inherent jurisdiction by the High Court. In the in stant case summoning order has been passed by the concerned Magistrate vide Annexure-8. The summoning order is not an interlocutory order and a revision against such order is maintainable. Consequently inherent jurisdiction should not be exer cised.;