Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J. - (1.) THIS application is directed against the order dated 2.8,2012 passed in Sadar P.S. case No. 308 of 2002 whereby and whereunder learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh rejected an application for discharge filled under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When the matter was came up hearing on the point of admission, question of maintainability of the application got cropped up as alternative remedy was available to the petitioner for challenging the impugned order.
(2.) HEARD Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that it is true that it has been well settled principle that an inherent power will come into play only when there is no provision in the Code for redressal of the grievance of the aggrieved party and that if the order assailed is purely of an interlocutory character, it can be corrected in exercise of the revisional power of the court and in that event, the High Court would refrain to interfere with the order in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But at the same time, it has also been held that none of the provisions of the Code prohibits or expressly bars invoking power of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Article 227 of the Constitution of India, particularly when for securing ends of justice, interference of the High Court is absolutely necessary.
(3.) IN this regard it was further submitted that the petitioner is being prosecuted for the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the petitioner had kept the file illegally with him but this allegation would not constitute offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and moreover, during investigation it has come that the concerned file was lying in the office and was being handled by the other person, still the prayer for discharge has been rejected and thereby the order impugned is patently illegal. In that event, there would be no bar for the High Court to examine the legality of the order in exercise of its inherent power.;