MOHIT ALIAS SONU AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

                         [2013] 7 S.C.R. 86


A              MOHIT ALIAS SONU AND ANOTHER
                                  v.
                  STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 814 of 2013)
                           JULY 01, 2013.
B
             [P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.]

        CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:

C       s. 482 read with ss. 319 and 397(2) - Order of Court of
  Session rejecting prayer of complainant u/s. 319 to summon
  applicants, set aside by High Cowt - Held: Order passed by
  trial court refusing to issue summons on the application filed
  by complainant uls. 319 decides rights and liabilities of
D appellants in respect of their involvement in the case and, as
  such, cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar
  a revision to High Court uls. 397(2)

       s. 482 - Exercise of power by High Court - Held: Inherent
  power of court can be exercised when there is no remedy or
E express provision provided in the Code for redressal of the
  grievance - In the instant case, complainant ought to have
  challenged the order before High Court in revision u/s. 397
  and not by invoking inherent jurisdiction of High Court u/s.
  482.
F
       s. 482 read with s. 401 (2) - Opportunity of hearing - Held:
  A valuable right accrued to appellants by reason of the order
  passed by Court of Session refusing to issue summons - In
  the circumstances, principle of giving notice and opportunity
  of hearing as contemplated uls 401(2) should be applied
G where such orders are challenged in High Court u/s. 482 -
  Order of High Court set aside and matter remanded to it for
  decision afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to
  appellants - Notice.

H                                 86
       MOHIT ALIAS SONU v. STATE OF U.P.               87


     In the instant appeal challenging the order of the High A
Court in a petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. setting aside the order
of the Court of Session rejecting the application of the
complainant u/s. 319 to summon the two appellants, the
questions for consideration before the Court were: (i)
whether petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court B
challenging the order of the Court of Session u/s. 319
Cr.P.C. was maintainable; and (ii) whether the High Court
before passing the impugned order ought to have given
noti~e and opportunity of hearing to the appellants.

    . Allowing the appeal, the Court
                                                            c
     HELD: 1.1 In exercise of revisional power u/ss. 397
and 401 Cr.P.C., the High Court can call for the records
of any criminal court and examine the correctness,
legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, D
recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any
proceeding of such inferior court. However, sub-s (2) of
s. 397 puts a restriction on exercise of such power in
relation to an interlocutory order passed by the criminal
courts in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. E
Further, sub-s (2) of s. 401 categorically provides that no
order shall be made by the High Court in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction affecting and prejudicing the right
of the accused or other person, unless he has been given
opportunity of hearing either personally or by pleader in F
his own defence. [Paras 11 and 12] [98-G-H; 99-A-B, C]

     1.2 This Court is of the considered opinion that the
order passed by the trial court refusing to issue summons
on the application filed by the complainant u/s. 319 of
Cr.P.C. cannot be held to be an interlocutory order within G
the meaning of sub-s (2) of s. 397 of Cr.P.C. The
complainant's application u/s. 319 of Cr.P.C. was rejected
for the second time holding that there was no sufficient
evidence against the appellants to proceed against them
.
by issuing summons. The said order passed by the trial H
    88      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013] 7 S.C.R.

A   court decides the rights and liabilities of the appellants·
    in respect of their involvement in the case and, as such,
    cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar
    a revision to the High Court against that order as
    contemplated u/s. 397(2) of Cr.P.C. (Para 20] (110-F-H;
B   111-A-B]

       Amar Nath & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. 1978 (1)
    SCR 222 = (1977) 4 sec 137 - relied on.

         1.3 When the complainant's application u/s. 319 of
C Cr.P.C. was rejected for the second time, he moved the
  High Court challenging the said order u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C.
  on the ground that the Court of Session had not
  correctly appreciated the facts of the case and the
  evidence ~rought on record. So far as the inherent power
D of the High Court as contained in s. 482 of Cr.P.C. is
  concerned, it is reiterated that when an order, not
  interlocutory in nature, can be assailed in the High Court
  in revisional jurisdiction, then there should be a bar in
  invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.
E Thus, inherent power of the court can be exercised when
  there is no remedy or express provision provided in the
  Code of Criminal Procedure for redressal of the
  grievance. The complainant ought to have challenged the
  order before the High Court in revision u/s. 397 of Cr.P.C.
F and not by invoking inherent jurisdiction of the High Court
  u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. [Para 21-23] (111-C-D, E-F, G-H; 112-
  A-B]

      Madhu Limaye. v. State of Maharashtra 1978 (1) SCR
  749 = (1977) 4 SCC 551; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.
G Ram Kishan Rohtagi 1983 (1) SCR 884 = (1983) 1 SCC 1;
  Raj Kapoor & Ors. v. State & Ors. 1980 (1) SCR 1081 =
  (1980) 1 SCC 43; Padam Sen & Anr. v. State of Uttar
  Pradesh 1961 SCR 884 =AIR 1961 SC 218; Manohar Lal
  Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hirata/ 1962 Suppl.
H SCR 450 = 1962 SC 527 - referred to.
        MOHIT ALIAS SONU v. STATE OF U.P.               89


     2. A valuable right accrued to the appellants by         A
 reason of the order passed by the Court of Session
 refusing to issue summons on the ground that no prima
 facie case was made out or:,i the basis of evidence
 brought on record. When in the case of challenge to the
 order of Court of Session, it is incumbent upon the          B
 revisional court to give notice and opportunity of hearing
 as contemplated under sub-s (2) of s. 401 Cr.P.C, there
 is no reason why the same principle should not be
 applied in a case where such orders are challenged in the
 High Court uls. 482 of Cr.P.C. The High Court has            c
 committed a grave error in passing the impugned order
 which is set aside and the matter is remanded to it for
 consideration afresh after giving an opportunity of
 hearing to the appellants. [Para 29 and 34) (113-F-H; 116-
 ~                                                            D
     Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Another v.
 Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Others 2012 (8) SCR
       =
 1015 (2012) 10 SCC 517; P. Sundarrajan v. R. Vidya
 Sekar (2004) 13 SCC 472, Raghu Raj Singh Rousha v.
 Shivam Sundaram Promotors (P) Ltd. 2008 (17) SCR 833    = E
 (2009) 2 SCC 363; A.N. Santhanam v. K. Elangovan (2012)
 12 SCC 321; Sayeed Bhagat and Others v. State of Andhra
 Pradesh 1999 Crl.L.J. 4040; Satish Chandra Dey v. State of
 Jharakhand & Anr. 2002 (2) AIR Jhar R 330 - referred to.
                                                              F
      Sarabjit Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and
                            =
  Another 2009 (8) SCR 762 (2009) 16 SCC 46; Hardeep
  Singh v. State of Punjab and Others 2008 (15) SCR 735 =
  (2009) 16 SCC 785 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.
  Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Others 1983 (1) SCR 884 = (1983)     G
  1 SCC 1; Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh and Another 2006 (3) SCR
· 1018 =  (2006) 10 SCC 192; and Sarojben Ashwinkumar
  Shah and Others. v. State of Gujarat and Another 2011 (9)
  SCR 1138  =  (2011) 13 .sec 316 Bangarayya v. State of
  Kamataka and Others (2010) 15 SCC 114 - cited.
                                                              H
    90       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013) 7 S.C.R.


A                       Case Law Reference:
         2009 "(8) SCR 762         cited               para 5
         2008 (15) SCR 735         cited               para 5
         1983 ( 1) SCR 884         cited               para 5
B
         2006 (3) SCR 1018         cited               para 6
         2011 (9) SCR 1138         cited               para 6
         (2010) 15 sec 114         cited               para 6
c        1978 (1) SCR 222          relied on           para 14
         1978 (1) SCR 749          referred to         para 16
         1983 (1) SCR 884          referred to        para 18
D        1980 (1) SCR 1081         referred to         para 19
         1961 SCR 884              referred to         para 24
         1962 Suppl. SCR 450       referred to        para 26

E        2012 (8) SCR 1015         referred to        para 30
         (2004) 13 sec 472         referred to        para 30
         2008 (17) SCR 8·33        referred to        para30
         (2012) 12 sec 321         referred to        Para 30
F
         1999 Crl.L.J. 4040        referred to        para 31
         2002 (2) AIR Jhar R 330   referred to        para 32

      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
G No. 814 of 2013.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.2009 of the
    High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc.
    Application No. 22823 of 2009.
H        A. Sharan, Aseem Chandra, Vivek Singh, Somesh
        MOHIT ALIAS SONU v. STATE OF U.P.                        91


Chandra Jha for the Appellants.                                        A

    Ashok Bhan, Jaspreet Gogia, Vipin Gogia, Brijendra
Singh, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Bharti Tyagi for the
Respondents.
                                                                       B
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     M.Y. EQBAL, J: 1. Leave granted.

     2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28th
October, 2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at                c
Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 22823 of
2009 whereby the order dated 3rd August, 2009 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2,
Mathura, rejecting the application moved by the complainant/
respondent No. 2 herein under Section 319 of the Code of               0
Criminal Procedure, 1973 in Sessions Trial No. 420 of 2007
was set aside and the trial court was directed to summon the
accused/appellants herein.

      3. The complainant/respondent No. 2 herein (Deepak)
lodged an FIR naming seven persons as accused regarding                E
the occurrence which took place on 7th February, 2003 at 10.30
p.m. stating that the accused persons named in the FIR armed
with lathi, danda and hockey caused injuries to his uncle Kamta
Prasad as well as to the complainant. The complainant was
medically examined on 8th February, 2003 and a lacerated               F
wound of 4 cm x 0.8 cm scalp deep on left side back of his
skull was reported by the doctor. Kamta Prasad succumbed
to his injuries alleged to have been caused by the accused.
The accused were named in the FIR vide Case Crime No. 44/
03 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 304 of the Indian Penal          G
Code (in short, "l.P.C."). The injured complainant as well as
other witnesses were examined by the Investigating Officer
(1.0.), but the 1.0. submitted charge-sheet only against five
accused leaving the names of two aceased who are appellants
before us. After committal of the case for trial, the trial court in   H
    92       ,SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 7 S.C.R.


A S.T. No. 420 of 2007 examined the complainant as PW-1. In
  his examination- in-chief, the complainant specifically stated the
  role of the appellants herein in the occurrence. The complainant
  then moved an application under Section 319 of the Code of
  Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'Cr.P.C.') for summoning
B the appellants herein as accused in the case. However, the trial
  court vide order dated 25th July, 2008 disposed of the
  application in view of the fact that cross-examination of PW-1
  had not completed and the fact had not been cleared from the
  witness that there existed probability of the conviction of the
c appellants herein. On a Criminal Miscellaneous Application
  being filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the High Court
  of Judicature at Allahabad against the above order, the High
  Court vide judgment and order dated 3rd September, 2008
  found no error in the order passed by trial court as the trial court
  had till then not finally decided the question of summoning the
0
  appellants and had simply postponed the issue as it thought
  that the matter should receive its due and proper consideration
  only after the cross-examination of the witness is over.
  Subsequently, PW-2 Vivek and PW-3 Deepak Kumar Dubey
  were also examined apart from the complainant. The second
E application filed under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was also rejected
  by the trial court vide order dated 3rd August, 2009 after
  considering various legal pronouncements, discussing the
  statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 and finding out that the
  evidence on record is improper and contradictory. Challenging
F this order, the complainant again filed a Criminal Miscellaneous
  Application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. which was allowed by
  the High Court vide order dated 28th October, 2009 impugned
  herein holding that the lower court committed error in rejecting
  the application of the complainanUrespondent No.2 for
G summoning the accused-appellants herein despite the prima
  facie evidence adduced by the prosecution disclosing their
  involvement in the alleged occurrence for which the other
  accused are facing the trial on the same facts of the case. The
  High Court by the impugned order directed the lower court to
H
          MOHIT ALIAS SONU v. STATE OF U.P.                     93
                   [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
summon the accused-appellants herein as per provisions under          A
Section 319, Cr.P.C.

    4. In arriving at its conclusion, the High Court in the
impugned order observed as under:

    "3 ..... From the perusal of the statements of the witnesses,     B
    it appears that the accused persons named Mohit and
    Sarthak also have committed the offence. There is ample
    evidence against the accused persons. They are named
    in the F.l.R. They are named in the statements of the
    witnesses recorded by the investigating officer as per            C
    provisions under section 161 Cr.P.C. There is specific role
    attributed to the accused persons and it cannot be said
    that they have not participated in the crime. The learned
    lower court relying on the assertion made on the affidavit
    of some witnesses which cannot be read at the stage of            D
    summoning the accused persons under section 319
    Cr.P.C., wrongly discussed the evidence of the witnesses
    on record in a cursory manner thereby rejecting the
    application of the applicant. ...... therefore, they are liable
    to be summoned.                                                   E
    xxx           xxx             xxx
     6. In the light of the law as is aforesaid, the perusal of the
     impugned order revealed that lower court committed error
    thereby discussing the evidence and appreciating the              F
    contradictions and the affidavits on record, thereby finding
     that the evidence of the witnesses is not accertable being
    irrelevant in the absence of any motive against the
    accused persons sought to be summoned in this case.
    Since the witnesses have stated that accused Mohit alias          G
    Sonu and Sarthak alias Babbal have taken part in inflicting
    injuries to Deepak and Kamta Prasad, therefore the case
    of accused Mohit and Sarthak cannot be set apart from
    other accused persons charge sheeted and against whom
    the trial is going on, thereby finding the improbability of the   H
•




        94            SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013) 7 S.C.R.


    A        conviction of accused Sarthak and Mohit regarding their
             participation in the occurrence along with other co-accused
             persons facing trial. The citations referred for taking
             recourse of the finding by lower court is not of the nature
             for finding the conclusive proof of conviction of the accused
    B        persons sought to be summoned rather it is held therein
             that there must be reasonable prospectus of the case
             against the newly added accused ending in the .conviction
             for the offence concerned for summoning of the accused.
             Reasonable prospectus of conviction has been wrongly
    c        discussed by the lower court replacing it to the conclusive
             proof of the conviction with a detailed discussion ....... The
             discretionary power vested in the court as per provisions
             under section 319 Cr.P.C. is supposed to be used thereby
             finding a prima facie case made out against the accused.
             While there is allegation of same contribution of the
    D
             accused Sarthak and Monu in the alleged occurrence as
             remained of other co-accused persons facing trial, how the
             case of Monu and Sarthak may be separated giving
             interim finding affecting the case of the other co-accused
             too in the case, trial of which is going on before the court
    E
             on the same allegations against the accused in trial.

             )()()(         xxx            )()()(


             8. Thus the learned lower court thereby analyzing the
    F        evidence on record wrongly took recourse of the facts that
             PW-2 and PW-3 have not proved the injuries on their
             persons despite the fact that they were stating that the
             injuries were received by them in the alleged occurrence.
             Similarly it is also wrongly analysed at this stage by the
             learned lower court that Mudgal (weapon of assault) by
    G
             which the deceased is said to have been assaulted, is not
             mentioned in the F.1.R. Merely calling for Ramveer may not
             be the outcome of the alleged occurrence is also wrongly
             held at this stage by the learned lower court because the
             learned lower court was not supposed to give finding at
    H
        MOHIT ALIAS SONU v. STATE OF U.P.                     95
                 [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
    this stage pertaining to the facts of entire trial to be        A
    conducted by the learned lower court. Similarly the alleged
    affidavits on record have also been wrongly considered for
    the purpose of finding the contradictions in the statements
    of the witnesses examined before the trial court."
                                                                    B
     Hence, this appeal by special leave.
       5. Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned senior counsel
appearing ·for the appellants while assailing the impugned order
passed by the High Court as being illegal and wholly without
jurisdiction, raised two important points for consideration.        c
Learned counsel firstly contended that the order passed by the
Sessions Court on the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
refusing to issue summons to the non-accused person ought
to have been challenged by the complainant before the High
Court invoking its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397/401    D
Cr.P.C. According to the learned counsel, application of the
complainant before the High Court under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. challenging the order passed under Section 319,
Cr."P.C. was not maintainable. Secondly, Mr. Sharan submitted
that, in any view of the matter, the High Court while exercising
                                                                    E
its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ought to have
given notice and opportunity of hearing to the appellants before
the order of the Sessions Judge was set aside. On the merits
of the appeal, learned counsel submitted that the High Court
while deciding the petition of the complainant under Section
482 Cr.P.C. on the first motion upset the reasoned order of the     F
trial court and despite the fact that the entire evidence adduced
till the decision on the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
by the trial court was not before the High Court, even then the
High Court exercised its discretion without issuing notice and
giving opportunity of hearing to the appellants. On the merits      G
of the case, learned counsel contended that for the purpose of
exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Court must
be satisfied about the existence of sufficient evidence on
record and not only on the basis of prima facie case. Learned
counsel contend.ed that the trial court rightly refused to summon   H
    96       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013) 7 S.C.R.


A the appellants on the ground that the witnesses were
  contradicted on their earlier statement and that the witnesses
  in their statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. have denied the
  presence of these appellants. Learned counsel put reliance on
  the decision of this Court in Sarabjit Singh and Another v. State
B of Punjab and Another (2009) 16 SCC 46; Hardeep Singh v.
  State of Punjab and Others (2009) 16 SCC 785 and Municipal
  Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Others
  (1983) 1 sec 1.

       6. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned senior
C counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant submitted
  that from the evidence adduced by the witnesses, the role
  played by the appellants has become apparent and the trial
  court has committed serious error of law in refusing to issue
  summons to the non-accused appellants. Learned counsel
D relied upon the decisions of this Court in Lok Ram v. Nihal
  Singh and Another (2006) 10 SCC 192; and Sarojben
  Ashwinkumar Shah and Others. v. State of Gujarat and
  Another(2011) 13 SCC 316. Mr. Bhan contended that it is the
  discretion of the Court to give notice to the accused for the
E purpose of issuing summons against them. According to the
  learned counsel, there cannot be pre-cognizance herein.
  Further, the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482
  Cr.P.C., can see the correctness and propriety of the order
  passed by the trial court. Learned counsel relied upon the
F decision of this Court in Bangarayya v. State of Kamataka and
  Others (201 O) 15 sec 114.

       7. Before going into the merits of the case, we would like
  to answer the two important points raised by the appellants i.e.,
G (i) whether petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High
  Court challenging the order of the Sessions Court passed
  under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is maintainable; and (ii) whether the
  High Court before passing the impugned order ought to have
  given notice and opportunity of hearing to the appellants.

H        8. Since both the points raised by Mr. Amarendra Sharan,
        MOHIT ALIAS SONU v. STATE OF U.P.                      97
                 [M.Y. EQBAL, J.)
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, being           A
interlinked, they are discussed here together. However, before
discussing those points, we would like to refer some of the
relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

    9. Section 397 Cr.P.C. confers power of revision on the          8
High Court or any Sessions Court, which reads as under:-

    "397. Calling for records to exercise powers of
    revision- (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may.
    call for and examine the record of any proceeding before
    any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local C
    jurisdiction for t~e purpose of satisfying itself or himself as
    to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding,
    sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the
    regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and
    may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution D
    of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused
    is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own
    bond pending the examination of the record.

    Explanation-- All Magistrates, whether Executive or              E
    Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate
    jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions
    Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section
     398.
     (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1)         F
     shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order
     passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.

    (3) If an application under this section has been made by
    any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions           G
    Judge, no further application by the same person shall be
    entertained by the other of them."

     10. Section 399 deals with Sessions Judge's power of
revision, whereas Section 401 deals with the power of revision
of the High Court. Section 401 reads as under:-                      H
•



        98        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013) 7 S.C.R.


    A        "401. High Court's powers of revision-- (1) In the case of
             any proceeding the record of which has been called for by
             itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High
             Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers
             conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 386, 389, 390
    B        and 391 or on a Court of Session by section 307 and,
             when the Judges composing the Court of revision are
             equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of
             in the manner provided by section 392.

             (2) No order under this section shall be made to the
    c        prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has
             had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by
             pleader in his own defence.

             (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a
    D        High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of
             conviction.

             (4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal
             is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be
             entertained at the instance of the party who could have
    E
             appealed.

             (5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an
             application for revision has been made to the High Court
             by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such
    F        application was made under the erroneous belief that no
             appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests
             of justice so to do, the High Court may treat the application
             for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same
             accordingly."
    G
            11. From bare reading of the aforesaid two provisions, it
      is clear that in exercise of revisional power under the aforesaid
      provisions, the High Court can call for the records of any criminal
      court and examine"the correctness, legality or propriety of any
    H finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the
        MOHIT ALIAS SONU v. STATE OF U.P.                      99
                 [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
regularity of any proceeding of such inferior court. However,        A
sub-section (2) of Section 397 puts a restriction on exercise
of such power in relation to an interlocutory order passed by
the criminal courts in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other
proceeding.
                                                                     8
      12. Similarly, Section 401 empowers the High Court to call
for any record in order to examine the correctness, legality or
propriety of any order, finding or sentence passed by the inferior
courts. However, sub-section (2) categorically provides that no
order shall be made by the High Court in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction affecting and prejudicing the right of the accused      C
or other person, unless he has been given opportunity of hearing
either personally or by pleader in his own defence.

    13. Section 482 Cr.P.C. which deals with the inherent
power of the High Court is extracted hereinbelow:-                   D

     "482. Saving of inherent power of High Court--
     Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the
     inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as
     may be necessary to give effect to any order under this         E
     Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or
     otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

     14. The power under Section 397 vis-a-vis Section 482
of Cr.P.C. has been elaborately discussed and explained in the
case of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC            F
551. The facts of that case were that the appellant was said to
have made certain statements and handed over a press hand-
out containing defamatory statements against the then Law
Minister of the respondent-State. The State Government
decided to prosecute the appellant for offence under Section         G
500 IPC and accorded necessary sanction. On the Public
Prosecutor filing the complaint, the Sessions Judge took
cognizance of the offence under Section 199(2) Cr.P.C. The
appellant contended that even assuming allegations imputed
to him were defamatory, they were not made against the               H
    100       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 7 S.C.R.


A Minister in discharging his public functions, but only in his
  personal capacity. The Sessions Judge rejected these
  contentions. On revision, the High Court held that a revision
  petition was not maintainable under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C.
  since the order of the Sessions Judge was an interlocutory
B order. A 3- Judge Bench of this Court discussing the object of
  the two provisions i.e. Section 397(2) and Section 482 of
  Cr.P.C. observed as under:-

          "10. As pointed out in Amar Nath's case [(1977) 4 SCC
          137] the purpose of putting a bar on the power·of revision
c         in relation to any interlocutory order passed in an appeal,
          inquiry, trial or other proceeding, is to bring about
          expeditious disposal of the cases finally. More often than
          not, the revisional power of the High Court was resorted
          to in relation to interlocutory orders delaying the final
D         disposal of the proceedings. The Legislature in its wisdom
          decided to check this delay by introducing sub-section (2)
          in Section 397. On the one hand, a bar has been put in
          the way of the High Court (as also of the Sessions Judge)
          for exercise of the revisional power in relation. to any
E         interlocutory order, on the other, the power has been
          conferred in almost the same terms as it was in the 1898
          Code. On a plain reading of Section 482, however, it would
          follow that nothing in the Code, which would include sub-
          section (2) of Section 397 also, "shall be deemed to limit
F         or affect the inherent powers of the High Court". But, if we
          were to say that the said bar is not to operate· in the
          exercise of the inherent power at all, it will be setting at
          naught one of the limitations imposed upon the exercise
          of the revisional powers. In such a situation, what is the
G         harmonious way out? In our opinion, a happy solution of
          this problem would be to say that the bar provided in sub-
          section (2) of Section 397 operates only in exercise of the
          revisional power of the High Court, meaning thereby that
          the High Court will have no power of revision in relation to
          any interlocutory order. Then in accordance with one of the
H
   MOHIT ALIAS SONU v. STATE OF U.P.                     101
            [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
other principles enunciated above, the inherent power will A
come into play, there being no other provision in the Code
for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. But
then, if the order assailed is purely of an interlocutory
character which could be corrected in exercise of the
revisional power of the High Court under the 1898 Code, B
the High Court will refuse to exercise its inherent power.
 But in case the impugned order clearly brings about a
situation which is an abuse of the process of the Court or
for the purpose of securing the ends of justice interference
 by the High Court is absolutely necessary, then nothing        c
 contained in Section 397(2) can limit or affect the exercise
 of the inherent power by the High Court. But such cases
would be few and far between. The High Court must
 exercise the inherent power very sparingly. One such case
 would be the desirability of the quashing of a criminal
                                                                 0
 proceeding initiated illegally, vexatiously or as being
without jurisdiction. Take for example a case where a
 prosecution is launched under the Prevention of Corruption
Act without a sanction, then the trial of the accused will be
 witt:iout jurisdiction and even after his acquittal a second E
 trial, after proper sanction will not be barred on the doctrine
 of autrefois acquit. Even assuming, although we shall
 presently show that it is not so, that in such a case an order
 of the Court taking cognizance or issuing processes is an
interlocutory order, does it stand to reason to say that
inherent power of the High Court cannot be exercised for F
stopping the criminal proceeding as early as possible,
instead of harassing the accused up to the end? The
answer is obvious that the bar will not operate to prevent
the abuse of the process of the Court and/or to secure the
ends of justice. The label of the petition filed by an G
aggrieved party is immaterial. The High Court can examine
the matter in an appropriate case under its inherent powers.
The present case undoubtedly falls for exercise of the
power of the High Court in accordance with Section 482
of the 1973 Code, even assuming, although not accepting,        H
    102        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 7 S.C.R.


A         that invoking the revisional power of the High Court is
          impermissible."

          15. This Court further observed:-
          "13. In S. Kuppuswami Rao v. King [AIR 1949 FC 1]
B         Kania, C.J. delivering the judgment of the Court has
          referred to some English decisions at pp. 185 and 186.
          Lord Esher M.R. said in Salaman v. Wamer(189~) 1 QB
          734:

c                "If their decision, whichever way it is given, will, if it
                 stands, finally dispose of the matter in dispute, I
                 think that for the purposes of these rules it is final.
                 On the other hand, if their decision, if given in one
                 way, will finally dispose of the matter in dispute but,
D                if given in the other, will allow the action to go on,
                 then I think it is not final, but interlocutory."

          To the same effect are the observations quoted from the
          judgments of Fry L.J. and Lopes L.J. Applying the said.
          test, almost on facts similar to the ones in the instant case,
E         it was held that the order in revision passed by the High
          Court [at that time there was no bar like Section 397(2)]
          was not a "final order'' within the meaning of Section 205(1)
          of the Government of India Act, 1935. It is to be noticed
          that the test laid down therein was that if the objection of
F         the accused succeeded, the proceeding could have ended
          but not vice versa. The order can be said to be a final order
          only if, in either event, the action will be determined. In our
          opinion if this strict test were to be applied in interpreting
          the words 'interlocutory order' occurring in Section 397(2),
G         then the order taking cognizance of an offence by a Court,
          whether it is so done illegally or without jurisdiction, will not
          be a final order and hence will be an interlocutory one.
          Even so, as we have said above, the inherent power of
          the High Court can be invoked for quashing such a criminal
H         proceeding. But in our judgment such an interpretation and
    MOHIT ALIAS SONU v. STATE OF U.P.                     103
             [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
  the universal application of the principle that what is not a   A
  final order must be an interlocutory order is neither
  warranted nor justified. If it were so it will render almost
  nugatory the revisional power of the Sessions Court or the
  High Court conferred on it by Section 397(1). On such a
  strict interpretation, only those orders would be revisable     B
  which are orders passed on the final determination· of the
  action but are not appealable under Chapter XXIX of the
. Code. This does not seem to be the intention of the
  Legislature when it retained the revisional power of the
   High Court in terms identical to the one in the 1898 Code.     c
   In what cases then the High Court will examine the legality
  or the propriety of an order or the legality of any
  proceeding of an inferior criminal court? Is it circumscribed
  to examine only such proceeding which is brought for its
  examination after the final determination and wherein no
                                                                  0
  appeal lies? Such cases will be very few and far between.
   It has been pointed out repeatedly, vide for example, River
   Wear Commissioners v. William Adamson [(1876-77) 2
  AC 743] and R.M.D. Chamarbaugwal/a v. Union of India
   [(1957) SCR 930] that although the words occurring in a
   particular statute are plain and unambiguous, they have to     E
   be interpreted in a manner which would fit in the context
   of the other provisions of the statute and bring about the
   real intention of the Legislature. On the one hand, the
   Legislature kept intact the revisional power of the High
  Court and, on the other, it put a bar on the exercise of that   F
  power in relation to any interlocutory order. In such a
  situation it appears to us that the real intention of the
  Legislature was not to equate the expression "interlocutory
  order" as invariably being converse of the words "final
  order''. There may be an order passed during the course         G
  of a proceeding which may not be final in the sense
  noticed in Kuppuswami case (supra), but, yet it may not
  be an interlocutory order - pure or simple. Some kinds of
  order may fall in between the two. By a rule of harmonio.us
  construction, we think that the bar in sub-section (2) of       H
    104       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 7 S.C.R.


A         Section 397 is not meant to be attracted to such kinds of
          intermediate orders. They may not be final orders for the
          purposes of Article 134 of the Constitution, yet it would not
          be correct to characterise them as merely interlocutory
          orders within the meaning of Section 397(2). It is neither
B         advisable, nor possible, to make a catalogue of orders to
          demonstrate which kinds of orders would be merely, purely
          or simply interlocutory and which kinds of orders would be
          final, and then to prepare an exhaustive list of those types
          of orders which will fall in between the two; The first two
c         kinds are well known and can be culled out from many
          decided cases. We may, however, indicate that the type
          of order with which we are concerned in this case, even
          though it may not be final in one sense, is surely not
          interlocutory so as to attract the bar of sub-section (2) of
          Section 397. In our opinion it must be taken to be an order
D
          of the type falling in the middle course."

        16. In the case of Amar Nath & Ors. v. State of Haryana
    & Ors. (1977) 4 SCC 137, two provisions i.e Sections 397 and
  482 have been considered and term 'interlocutory order' has
E been fully discussed. In that case, an FIR was lodged
  mentioning a number of accused persons including the
  appellants as having participated in the occurrence which
  resulted in the death of the deceased. The police after holding
  investigations, submitted a charge-sheet against the other
F accused persons except the appellants against whom the
  police opined that no case at all was made out as no weapon
  was recovered nor was there any clear evidence about the
  participation of the appellants. After submission of the final
  report, the Judicial Magistrate accepted the report and set the
G appellants at liberty. The complainant thereafter filed a revision
  petition before the Additional Sessions Judge against the order
  of the Judicial Magistrate releasing the appellants, but the
  same was dismissed. The informant filed a regular complaint
  before the Judicial Magistrate against all the 11 accused
H including the appellants. The Magistrate after having examined
        MOHIT ALIAS SONU v. STATE OF U.P.                    105
                  [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
the complainant and going through the record dismissed the           A_
complaint as he was satisfied that no case was made out
against the appellants. Thereafter, the complainant took up the
matter in revision before the Sessions Judge, who this time
allowed the revision petition and remanded the matte'r to the
Judicial Magistrate for further enquiry. The Judicial Magistrate     B
on receiving the order of the Sessions judge issued summons
to the appellants straightaway. The appellants then moved the
High Court. under Sections 482 and 397 of the Code for
quashing the order of the Judicial Magistrate, mainly on the
ground that the Magistrate had issued the summons in a               c
mechanica.1 manner ·without applying his judicial mind to the
facts of the case. The High Court dismissed the petition in
limine and refused to entertain it on the ground that as the order
of the Magistrate summoning the appellants was an
 interlocutory order, a revision to the High Court was barred by
                                                                     0
 virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. The High
 Court Jurther held that as the revision was barred, the Court
 could not take up the case under Section 482 in order to quash
 the very order of the Judicial Magistrate under Section 397 of
 Cr.P.C. Answering the question raised, Hon'ble Fazal Ali, J.
 delivering the judgment on behalf of the Bench, observed :-
                                                                     E

     'While we fully agree with the view taken by the learned
    Judge that where a revision to the High Court against the
     order of the Subordinate Judge is expressly barred under
     sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the 1973 Code the             F
     inherent powers contained in Section 482 would not be
    available to defeat the bar contained in Section 397(2).
    Section 482 of the 1973 Code contains the inherent
    powers of the Court and does not confer any new powers
    but preserves the powers which the High Court already            G
    possessed. A harmonious construction of Sections 397
    and 482 would lead to the irresistible conclusion that where
    a particular order is expressly barred under Section 397(2)
    and cannot be the subject of revision by the High Court,
    then to such a case the provisions of Section 482 would          H
    106        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 7 S.C.R.


A         not apply. It is well settled that the inherent powers of the
          Court can ordinarily be exercised when there is no express
          provision on the subject-matter. Where there is an express
          provision, barring a particular remedy, the Court cannot
          resort to the exercise of inherent powers."
B
         17. So far as the question as to whether the order of the
    Judicial Magistrate was an interlocutory order is concerned,
    Their Lordships after discussing the legislative bac:,around of
    the provisions held:-

c        "6 .... The main question which falls for determination in this
         appeal is as to what is the connotation of the term
         "interlocutory order" as appearing in sub-section (2) of
         Section 397 which bars any revision of such an order by
         the High Court. The term "interlocutory order'' is a term of
D        well-known legal significance and does not present any
         serious difficulty. It has been used in various statutes
         including the Code of Civil Procedure, Letters Patent of
         the High Courts and other like statutes. In Webster's New
         World Dictionary "interlocutory" has been defined as an
E        order other than final decision. Decided cases have laid
         down that interlocutory orders to be appealable must be
         those which decide the rights and liabilities of the parties
         concerning a particular aspect. It seems to us that the term
         "interlocutory order" in Section 397(2) of the 1973. Code
F        has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad
         or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely
         interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch
         the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any
         order which substantially affects the right of the accused,
         or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to
G
         be an interlo<;:utory order so as to bar a revison to the High
         Court against that order, because that would be against
         the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this
         particular provision in Section 397 of the 1973 Code. Thus,
       · for instance, orders summoning witnesses, adjourning
H
   MOHIT ALIAS SONU v. STATE OF U.P.                     107
            [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
cases, passing orders for bail, calling for reports and such   A
other steps in aid of the pending proceeding, may no doubt
amount to interlocutory orders against which no revision
would lie under Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code. But
orders which are matters of moment and which affect or
adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect    8
of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as
to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of
the High Court."
In the concluding paragraph, this Court finally held:-
                                                               c
"Applying the aforesaid tests, let us now see whether the
order impugned in the instant case can be said to be an
interlocutory order as held by the High Court. In the first
place, so far as the appellants are concerned, the police
had submitted its final report against them and they were
                                                               0
released by the Judicial Magistrate. A revision against that
order to the Additional Sessions Judge preferred by the
complainant had failed. Thus the appellants, by virtue of
the order of the Judicial Magistrate as affirmed by the
Additional Sessions Judge acquired a valuable right of not     E
being put on trial unless a proper order was made against
them. Then came the complaint by Respondent 2 before
the Judicial Magistrate which was also dismissed on
merits. The Sessions Judge in revision, however, set aside
the order dismissing the complaint and ordered further
inquiry. The Magistrate on receiving the order of the          F
Sessions Judge summoned the appellants straightaway
which meant that the appellants were to be put on trial. So
long as the Judicial Magistrate had not passed this order,
no proceedings were started against the appellants, nor
were any such proceedings pending against them. It was         G
only with the passing of the impugned order that the
proceedings started and the question of the appellants
being put up for trial arose for the first time. This was
undoubtedly a valuable right which the appellants
possessed and which was being denied to them by the            H
    108       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 7 S.C.R.


A         impugned order. It cannot, therefore, be said that the
          appellants were not at all prejudiced, or that any right of
          their's was not involved by the impugned order. It is difficult
          to hold that the impugned order summoning the appellants
          straightaway was merely an interlocutory order which could
B         not be revised by the High Court under sub-sections (1)
          and (2) of Section 397 of the 1973 Code. The order of the
          Judicial Magistrate summoning the appellants in the
          circumstances of the present case, particularly having
          regard to what had preceded, was undoubtedly a matter
          of moment, and a valuable right of the appellants had been
c         taken away by the Magistrate's passing an order prima
          facie in a mechanical fashion without applying his mind.
          We are, therefore, satisfied that the order impugned was
          one which was a matter of moment and which did involve
          a decision regarding the rights of the appellants. If the
D         appellants were not summoned, then they could not have
          faced the trial at all, but by compelling the appellants to face
          a trial without proper application of mind cannot be held
          to be an interlocutory matter but one which decided a
          serious question as to the rights of the appellants to be
E         put on trial."
         18. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram
    Kishan Rohtagi (1983) 1 SCC 1, this Court relying upon the
    earlier decision in Madhu Limaye case (supra) observed:-
F         "5. After the coming into force of the Code of Criminal
          Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "present
          Code"}, there was a serious divergence of judicial opinion
          on the question as to whether where a power is exercised
          under Section 397 of the present Code, the High Court
G         could exercise those very powers under Section 482 of the
          present Code. It is true that Section 397(2) clearly bars the
          jurisdiction of the court in respect of interlocutory orders
          passed in appeal, enquiry or other proceedings. The
          matter is, however, no longer res integra as the entire
H         controversy has been set at rest by a decision of this Court
   MOHIT ALIAS SONU v. STATE OF U.P.                   109
             [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1978) 1 SCR,          A
749 where this Court pointed out that Section 482 of the
present Code had a different parameter and was a
provision independent of Section 397(2). This Court further
held that while Section 397(2) applied to the exercise of
revisional powers of the High Court, Section 482 regulated     B
the inherent powers of the court to pass orders necessary
in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the court.
In this connection, Untwalia, J. speaking for the Court
observed as follows: [SCC para 10, pp. 555-56 : SCC
(Cri) P. 15]                                                   C
       "On a plain reading of Section 482, however, it
       would follow that nothing in the Code, which would
       include sub-section (2) of Section 397 also, 'shall
       be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of
       the High Court'. But, if we were to say that the said   D
       bar is not to operate in the exercise of the inherent
       power at all, it will be setting at naught one of the
       limitations imposed upon the exercise of the
       revisional powers .... But in case the impugned order
       clearly brings about a situation which is an abuse      E
       of the process of the court or for the purpose of
       securing the ends of justice interference by the High
       Court is absolutely necessary, then nothing
       contained in Section 397(2) can limit or affect the
       exercise of the inherent power by the High Court.       F
       But such cases would be few and far between. The
       High Court must exercise the inherent power very
       sparingly."
6. It may be noticed that Section 482 of the present Code
is the ad verbatim copy of Section 561-A of the old Code.      G
This provision confers a separate and independent power
on the High Court alone to pass orders ex debito justitiae
in cases whera grave and substantial injustice has been
done or where the process of the court has been seriously
abused. It is not merely a revisional power meant to be        H
     110        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 7 S.C.R.


'A         exercised against the orders passed by subordinate
           courts. It was under this section that in the old Code, the
           High Courts used to quash the proceedings or expunge
           uncalled for remarks against witnesses or other persons
           or subordinate courts. Thus, the scope, ambit and range
B          of Section 561-A (which is now Section 482) is quite
           different from the powers conferred by the present Code
           under the provisions of Section 397. It may be that in some
           cases there may be overlapping but such cases would be
           few and far between, It is well settled that the inherent
c          powers under Section 482 of the present Code can be
           exercised only when no other remedy is available to the
           litigant and not where a specific remedy is provided by the
           statute. Further, the power being an extraordinary one, it
           has to be exercised sparingly. If these considerations are
           kept in mind, there will be no inconsistency between
D
           Sections 482 and 397(2) of the present Code."

       19. In the case of Raj Kapoor& Ors. v. State & Ors. (1980)
  1 SCC 43, Justice Krishna Iyer, while distinguishing the power
  of the High Court under Section 397
                       #~            •
                                        vis-a-vis Section 482 of
E Cr.P.C. observed.that Section 397 or any of the provisions of
  Cr.P.C. will ne>t affect the amplitude of the inherent power
  preserved in Section 482. Even so, easy resort to inherent
  power is not right except under compelling circumstances.
  Inherent power should not invade areas set apart for specific
F power under the same Code.

       20. In the light of the ratio laid down by this Court referred
  to hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the order
  passed by the trial court refusing to issue summons on the
G application filed by the complainant under Section 319 of
  Cr.P.C. cannot be held to be an interlocutory order within the
  meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
  Admittedly, in the instant case, before the trial court the
  complainant's application under Section 31"9 of Cr.P.C. was
  rejected for the second time holding that there was no sufficient
H
         MOHIT ALIAS SONU v. STATE OF U.P.                    111
                  [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
 evidence against the appellants to proceed against .them by A
 issuing summons. The said order passed by the trial court
 decides the rights and liabilities of the appellants in respect of
 their involvement in the case. As held by this Court in Amar
 Nath's case (supra), an order which substantially affects the
 rights of the accused or decides certain rights of the parties B
 cannot be said to be 'an interlocutory order so as to bar a
 revision to the High Court against that order as contemplated
 under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C.                          t

      21. In the instant case as noticed above, when the C
 complainant's application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was
 rejected for the second time, he moved the High Court
 challenging the said order under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on the
 ground that the Sessions Court had not correctly appreciated
 the facts of the case and the evidence brought on record. The
 complainant wanted the High Court to set aside the order after D
 holding that the evidence brought on record is sufficient for
 coming to the conclusion that the appellants were also involved
 in the commission of the offence.

       22. In our considered opinion, the complainant ought to E
  have challenged the order before the High Court in revision
  under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. and not by invoking inherent
  jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
  Maybe, in order to circumvent the provisions contained in sub-
: section (2) of Section 397 or Section 401, the complainant F
  moved the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the event
  a criminal revision had been filed against the order of the
  Sessions Judge passed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., the High
  Court before passing the order would have given notice and
  opportunity of hearing to the appellants.                      G
       23. So far as the inherent power of the High Court as
 contained in Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, the law in
 this regard is set at rest by this Court in a catena of decisions.
 However, we would like to reiterate that when an order, not
                                                                      H
    112       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 7 S.C.R.

A   interlocutory in nature, can be assailed in the High Court in
    revisional jurisdiction, then there should be a bar in invoking the
    inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. In other words, inherent
    power of the Court can be exercised when there is no remedy
    provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure for redressal of
B   the grievance. It is well settled that 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.

          24. Courts possess inherent power in other statute also
C   like the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) Section 151 whereof
    deals with such power. Section 151 of C.P.C. reads:-

          "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise
          affect the inherent powers of the Court to make such
          orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to
D         prevent abuse of the process of court."

         25. This Court in the case of Padam Sen & Anr. v. State
    of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 218 regarding inherent power
    of the Court under Section 151 C.P.C. observed:-

E         "The inherent powers of the Court are in addition to the
          powers specifically conferred on the Court by the Code.
          They are complementary to those powers and therefore,
          it must be held that the Court is free to exercise them for
          the purposes mentioned in Section 151 of the Code when
F         the exercise of those powers is not in any way in conflict
          what has been expressly provided in the Code or against
          the intentions of the Legislation. It is also well recognised
          that the inherent power is ·not to be exercised in a manner
          which will be contrary to or different from the procedure
G         expressly provided in the Code."

        26. In a Constitution Bench decision rendered in the case
    of Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hira/al,
    AIR 1962 SC 527, this Court held that :-

H
         MOHIT ALIAS SONU v. STATE OF U.P.                   113
                   [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]

     "The inherent jurisdiction of the Court to make orders ex A
     debito justiciae is undoubtedly affirmed by S.151 of the
     Code but inherent jurisdiction cannot be exercised so as
     to nullify the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure.
     Where the Code of Civil Procedure deals expressly with a
     particular matter, the provision should normally be regarded B
     as exhaustive."

      27. The intention of the Legislature enacting the Code of
 Criminal Procedure and the. Code of Civil Procedure vis-a-vis
 the law laid down by this Court it can safely be concluded that C
 when there is a specific remedy provided by way of appeal or
 revision the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or
 Section 151 C.P.C. cannot and should not be resorted to.

      28. The second question that needs consideration is as to
 whether the High Court exercising its revisional jurisdiction or D
 inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., while
 considering the legality and propriety of the order passed under
 Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Code is required to give notice and
 opportunity of hearing to the person in whose favour\ some right
 accrued by virtue of order passed by the trial court. In other E
 words, whether it would be justified for the High Court to
 entertain a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and pass order
 to the prejudice of the accused or other person (the appellants
 herein) without giving notice and opportunity of hearing to them.

        29. Indisputably, a valuable right accrued to the appellants F
  by reason of the order passed by the Sessions Court refusing
  to issue summons on the ground that no prima facie case has
  been made out on the basis of evidence brought on record. As
  discussed hereinabove, when the Sessions Court order has
  been challenged, then it was incumbent upon the revisional court G
  to give notice and opportunity of hearing as contemplated under
. sub-section (2) of Section 401 of Cr.P.C. In our considered
  opinion, there is no reason why the same principle should not
  be applied in a case where such orders are challenged in the
  High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.                            H
    114        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 7 S.C.R.


A        30. Recently, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of
    Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Another v. Shaileshbhai
    Mohanbhai Patel and Others (2012) 10 sec 517 considered
    the question as to whether in a case where an order of the
    Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of
B   Cr.P.C. at the stage under Section 200, the accused or a
    person who is suspected to have committed the crime is entitled
    to hearing by the revisional court. After considering all the
    earlier decisions, in the case of P. Sundarrajan v. R. Vidya
    Sekar (2004) 13 SCC 472, Raghu Raj Singh Rousha v.
c   Shivam Sundaram Promotors (P) Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 363 and
    A.N.Santhanam v. K. Elangovan (2012) 12 SCC 321, this
    Court held as under:-

          "53. We are in complete agreement with the view
          expressed by this Court in P. Sundarrajan, Raghu Raj
D         Singh Rousha and A.N. Santhanam. We hold, as it must
          be, that in a revision petition preferred by the complainant
          before the High Court or the Sessions Judge challenging
          an order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under
          Section 203 of the Code at the stage under Section 200
E         or after following the process contemplated under Section
          202 of the Code, the accused or a person who is
          suspected to have committed the crime is entitled to
          hearing by the Revisional Court. In other words, where the
          complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under
F         Section 203 of the Code, upon challenge to the legality of
          the said order being laid by the complainant in a revision
          petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, the
          persons who are arraigned as accused in the complaint
          have a right to be heard in such revision petition. This is a
G         plain requirement of Section 401 (2) of the Code. If the
          Revisional Court overturns the order of the Magistrate
          dismissing the complaint and the complaint is restored to
          the file of the Magistrate and it is sent back for fresh
          consideration, the persons who are alleged in the
          complaint to have committed the crime have, however, no
H
         MOHIT ALIAS SONU v. STATE OF U.P.                    115
                  [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
     right to participate in the proceedings nor are they entitled    A
     to any hearing of any sort whatsoever by the Magistrate
     until the consideration of the matter by the Magistrate for
     issuance of process. We answer the question accordingly.
     The judgments of the High Courts to the contrary are
     overruled."                                                      B

     31. The same question came up for consideration before
different High Courts some of which we would like to refer
hereinbelow. In the case of Sayeed Bhagat and Others v. State
of Andhra Pradesh 1999 Crl.L.J.4040, a Bench of the Patna
High Court noticed the facts of the case where an application         C
was filed in a criminal case under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to
summon the remaining accused persons who were named by
the witnesses. The Magistrate refused the said prayer mainly
for want of sufficient evidence. The said order was challenged
in revision by the complainant. The revisional court set aside        D
the order of the Magistrate without hearing the petitioners
against whom prayer was made for issuance of summons.
When the matter came up before the High Court, the Bench held
as under:-
                                                                      E
            "8. In the instant case also though the jurisdiction of
      the Court to summon a person under Section 319 of the
      Cr.P.C. cannot be questioned, the revisional Court, in my
      view should have heard the petitioners before passing the
      impugned order because the same has prejudiced them."           F

       32. In a similar case in Satish Chandra Dey v. State of
 Jharkhand & Anr. 2008 (2) AIR Jhar R 330, the order of
 Sessions Judge was challenged in the High Court under
 Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on the ground inter alia that the
 Sessions Judge directed the Magistrate to summon the                 G
 petitioner to face trial along with other accused though the trial
·court had refused to exercise its jurisdiction to summon the
 petitioner to face trial. The question raised before the High
 Court was that the revisional court has erred in law in passing
                                                                      H
    116        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013) 7 S.C.R.


A   such order without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
    Allowing the said petition, the High Court held as under :-

           "10. Thus it is evidently clear from the relevant provision
           of law that no order to the prejudice of an accused or any
           other person can be made unless the said accused or the
B
           said persons have been given an opportunity of being
           heard.

           11. In the instant case also learned Sessions Judge in
           absence of the petitioner has passed the impugned order
c          whereby he directed the trial Court to implead the petitioner
           as an accused in the proceeding which in view of the
           provision as contained in Sections 399/401/401 (2) of the
           Code of Criminal Procedure is illegal.

D          12. In the result, this application is allowed and the
           impugned order dated 23.6.2006 s set aside and the case
           is remanded to the learned

      Sessions Judge, Bokaro for hearing afresh after giving
  due notice to the parties so that the same be disposed of in
E accordance with law."

         33. Since the reasoning discussed hereinabove would be
    suffice to dispose of the present appeal, we do not wish to go
    into the merits of the case with regard to the scope of the
F   provisions of Section 319 of Cr.P.C.

       34. After giving our anxious consideration in the matter, we
  conclude by holding that the High Court has committed a grave
  error in passing the impugned order for the reasons given
  hereinbefore. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the
G order of the High Court and remand the matter back to the High
  Court to consider the matter afresh after giving an opportunity
  of hearing to the present appellants.

    R.P.                                              Appeal allowed.
H