Article 227 and inherent jurisdiction remain available despite revision, where intervention is needed to prevent abuse of process.

Availability of a revisional remedy before the Sessions Court does not create an absolute bar to a High Court petition under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The inherent and supervisory jurisdictions remain available, though Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases where intervention is needed to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. Earlier authorities on revision were treated as recognising revision as an appropriate remedy in suitable cases, not as excluding High Court jurisdiction altogether. The petition was therefore held maintainable and entertained under Section 482 read with Article 227.

---

---

Issues: Whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against an order issuing process is maintainable despite the availability of a revision before the Sessions Court.

Analysis: The Court noted that the existence of a revisional remedy does not create an absolute bar to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or inherent jurisdiction under Section 482. The remedy under Section 482 is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases, but it remains available where interference is warranted to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. The earlier decisions relied upon for the objection were understood as expressing that revision may be the appropriate remedy in suitable cases, not that recourse to Article 227 or Section 482 is wholly barred. The Court further held that the availability of revision does not extinguish the constitutional or inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.

Conclusion: The petition was held maintainable and entertained under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

---