NIRMAL SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition for quashing complaint No. 145/1, dated 5.3.1997, Annexure P-3, pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon and also for setting aside the summoning order dated 17.3.1998, Annexure P-4 for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC.
(2.) AT the hearing learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly stated that the order passed by the Magistrate for summoning the petitioner is revisable order. The inherent power of the High Court cannot be pressed in aid for the purposes of indirectly undoing or modifying an order which is appealable or revisable. In Balbhadra Dash and another v. State of Orissa and others, 1991 Crl.L.J. 2457, it has been held as under :- "Inherent power is wide in nature and Section 482 in Cr.P.C. having been made to secure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court, such power is to be exercised with great restraint. Wider would be the power, greater should be the restraint. Ordinarily, trial of in accused a criminal prosecution is to be concluded under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and High Court would be reluctant to conclude the same at an interim stage. Therefore, prayer for quashing charge to taking cognizance ought not to be entertained in a routine manner and unless High Court is satisfied that there is abuse of process of Court or ends of justice demands it, such prayer ought not to be entertained. Even if, such prayers are entertained, all endeavours should be made to examine if the abuse of powers of Court can be eradicated without bringing the proceeding to an end in the midway. Where accused would be put to such inconvenient position that subsequent examination of these questions would materially affect him which would be irreparable in nature, High Court can for reasons to be recorded in that regard, examine the materials to interfere with the continuance of trial. Therefore, where all the accused persons had an opportunity to advance submissions before the Magistrate that materials on record do not call for framing of charge against them, High Court declined exercise of inherent powers for quashing cognizance. In subordinate authority normally higher authority should not exercise its powers to give same relief." In Mohan Lal and another v. State, Opposite Parties, 1974 Crl.L.J. 1407, it has been held as under :- "The inherent power of the High Court under that provision, to my mind, cannot be pressed in aid for the purposes of indirectly undoing or modifying an order which is appealable or revisable and has become final because no appeal or revision was filed against it or having been filed were dismissed thus giving finality to the same. The order of the learned magistrate dated 17th January, 1969 and the appellate order therefrom are not in challenge in these proceedings." At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any precedent that when an alternative remedy is available, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable."
(3.) IN the instant case, admittedly the order is revisable. Therefore, this petition can not be adjudicated upon on merits. Hence, the petition is dismissed. However, the petition is at liberty, if so advised to make an application before the trial Court or before the revisional Court for dropping the proceedings. The petitioner is at liberty to take all the pleas which has been taken in this petition before the trial Court. Petition dismissed.;