Inherent powers cannot bypass the bar on revising interlocutory orders; recall before the Magistrate must be sought first.

A petition under section 482 CrPC to challenge a summoning order in a complaint case was held not maintainable at that stage because the order was treated as interlocutory and section 397(2) barred revisional interference. The High Court applied the principle that inherent powers should not be used to bypass an express statutory bar or an available alternative remedy. An accused summoned in such circumstances must first seek recall of the process before the Magistrate; only after refusal can further challenge be pursued. On the facts alleged in the complaint, the case did not disclose such exceptional abuse of process as to justify immediate quashing.

---

---

Issues: Whether a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable to challenge a summoning order in a complaint case without first seeking recall or rescission of that order before the Magistrate, in view of the bar under section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The summoning order was treated as an interlocutory order. The Court applied the principle that inherent powers are not to be invoked where the Code provides an alternative remedy, and that such powers should not be used to circumvent the express bar against revisional interference with interlocutory orders. It held that an accused who has been summoned must first approach the Magistrate for recall of the process; only if that request is refused may further challenge be considered. On the facts alleged in the complaint, the case was not treated as one of such exceptional abuse of process as to justify immediate quashing at the threshold.

Conclusion: The petition under section 482 was not maintainable against the summoning order at that stage, and the challenge failed.

---