Cognizance and process orders are ordinarily revisable, and inherent power cannot bypass the statutory remedy absent abuse of process.

An order taking cognizance and issuing process is treated as a final or intermediate order, not a mere interlocutory order, so the revisional remedy under Section 397 is ordinarily available. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 is a saving power to be used sparingly and cannot be invoked merely to bypass the statutory revisional route. On the facts, allegations of cheating in a hotel transaction and misbranding under the Insecticides Act did not show a jurisdictional bar, lack of authority, or clear abuse of process. The cognizance orders were therefore not fit for quashing under Section 482, and the parties were relegated to revision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order taking cognizance and issuing process is an interlocutory order so as to permit invocation of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 when revision under Section 397 is available; (ii) Whether the impugned cognizance orders disclosed abuse of process, lack of jurisdiction, or a case fit for interference under Section 482.

Issue (i): Whether an order taking cognizance and issuing process is an interlocutory order so as to permit invocation of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 when revision under Section 397 is available.

Analysis: The order taking cognizance was treated as a final or intermediate order and not as a mere interlocutory order. The revisional power under Section 397 extends to testing the correctness, legality, and propriety of such an order, while Section 482 remains a saving provision to be used sparingly where the statutory remedy is unavailable or where interference is necessary to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. The Court relied on the controlling principles that inherent power cannot be used to bypass a specific remedy when the Code provides one, and that cognizance orders are ordinarily amenable to revision.

Conclusion: The proper remedy against the cognizance orders was revision under Section 397, and Section 482 was not maintainable merely because the petitioners chose to invoke it.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned cognizance orders disclosed abuse of process, lack of jurisdiction, or a case fit for interference under Section 482.

Analysis: On the factual allegations, one matter disclosed allegations of cheating arising from the hotel transaction and the other disclosed allegations of misbranding under the Insecticides Act. The Court found that these were not cases of purely civil dispute or jurisdictional bar. The objections raised by the petitioners could be examined in the ordinary course of criminal proceedings or before the revisional court. No ground was made out to hold that the Magistrates had acted without jurisdiction or that the proceedings were ex facie an abuse of process.

Conclusion: No ground for quashing was made out under Section 482, and the cognizance orders were left undisturbed.

Final Conclusion: The petitions failed on both maintainability and merits, and the petitioners were relegated to the revisional remedy under the Code.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Code provides a specific revisional remedy against a cognizance or process order that is not merely interlocutory, the High Court should not invoke inherent powers under Section 482 unless the case discloses lack of jurisdiction, legal bar, or abuse of process warranting exceptional interference.

---