Supervisory and inherent jurisdiction remain discretionary where a statutory revision remedy is available and unexhausted.

The availability of a revisional remedy under Section 397 CrPC does not absolutely bar invocation of Article 227 or Section 482, but both jurisdictions are discretionary and should be used sparingly, especially where an efficacious statutory remedy exists. Because the petitioner had not exhausted the revision remedy against the order issuing process, the High Court found no basis for interference at that stage and treated the petition as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable when the petitioner had an available revisional remedy under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order issuing process.

Analysis: The availability of a revisional remedy does not, as an absolute rule, exclude the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 or Section 482. However, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where intervention is necessary to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is likewise discretionary and is not ordinarily invoked where an efficacious statutory remedy is available. Since the petitioner had not exhausted the revision remedy against the order issuing process, the petition was not a fit case for interference.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable at this stage and was rejected.

---