Inherent jurisdiction cannot bypass revisional remedy to challenge a discharge order when no independent legal injury is shown.

Section 482 inherent power cannot be invoked to bypass the Code's specific revisional remedy where a discharge order is not interlocutory and is amenable to scrutiny under Sections 397/401. A stranger to the criminal proceedings, who was neither a victim nor otherwise shown to be an aggrieved person, had no independent right to challenge the discharge order merely as a concerned citizen. The fact that the aggrieved person had already filed and voluntarily withdrawn a revision, after the Court satisfied itself that the withdrawal was not under pressure or coercion, reinforced the absence of maintainability. No exceptional abuse of process was shown to justify inherent jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant, a stranger to the criminal proceedings, could invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 to challenge the discharge order when the order was revisable under the Code and the aggrieved person had already pursued and withdrawn the revision.

Analysis: The inherent power under Section 482 is wide but it is not to be used where the Code provides a specific remedy. The discharge order was not interlocutory and was amenable to revisional scrutiny under Sections 397/401. The aggrieved person had already filed a revision and later withdrew it voluntarily after repeated appearances and satisfaction of the Court that the withdrawal was not under pressure or coercion. The applicant was neither a victim nor an aggrieved person, had no demonstrated legal injury, and showed no independent right to intervene merely as a concerned citizen. The circumstances also did not disclose any exceptional abuse of process justifying invocation of inherent jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The application under Section 482 was not maintainable and the challenge to the discharge order could not be entertained at the instance of the applicant.

---