Section 482 inherent jurisdiction remains available despite revision remedy; courts must consider summoning orders on merits.

Availability of a revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not, by itself, bar invocation of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482. That jurisdiction remains available to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, and an order summoning the accused is not treated as an interlocutory order in this context. The existence of revisional or supervisory remedies therefore does not create a total prohibition on Section 482 relief. An application under Section 482 cannot be rejected solely because revision is available, and the court must consider the matter on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be rejected merely because a revision remedy under Section 397 of that Code was available.

Analysis: The availability of a revision petition does not by itself bar the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. That jurisdiction is preserved to prevent abuse of the process of court and to secure the ends of justice. The order summoning the accused is not an interlocutory order in the relevant sense, and the existence of revisional or even supervisory remedies does not create a total prohibition against invoking inherent powers. The view that Section 482 is unavailable whenever revision lies was held to be inconsistent with the settled law on the scope of inherent jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The application under Section 482 could not be dismissed solely on the ground that a revision under Section 397 was available; the High Court was required to consider the matter on merits.

---