Inherent jurisdiction cannot bypass an available revision remedy against a summoning order; interim protection was granted for limited relief.

Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC should not be used to directly challenge a summoning order when an efficacious revision remedy is available before the appropriate court. The application had originally concerned recall of non-bailable warrants, and the attempt to introduce a challenge to the summoning order by amendment had not been allowed. The Court therefore declined to entertain the direct challenge in the proper forum, while noting that no merits of the Section 138 NI Act allegations were examined and that a moratorium order existed. Interim protection was granted by keeping the non-bailable warrants and further proceedings in abeyance for six weeks, with liberty to appear, seek bail, and pursue the challenge before the correct forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant could invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to challenge the summoning order directly when an effective remedy of revision before the court below was available, and whether interim protection was warranted in the meantime.

Analysis: The application was filed initially against the proceedings relating to recall of non-bailable warrants without assailing the summoning order. The challenge to the summoning order was introduced later by amendment, but the amendment application had not been allowed. Since the summoning order had not been challenged in the proper forum, and a revision remedy was available before the court below, entertaining a direct challenge under Section 482 would prejudice the applicant by depriving him of the proper forum and the benefit of a reasoned consideration. Without entering into the merits of the allegations under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Court also noted the existence of a moratorium order.

Conclusion: The direct challenge to the summoning order was not entertained under Section 482, but the non-bailable warrants and further proceedings were kept in abeyance for six weeks, with liberty to the applicant to appear, seek bail, and challenge the summoning order before the appropriate forum.

Final Conclusion: The application was disposed of with limited interim protection and liberty to pursue the challenge to the summoning order in the proper forum.

Ratio Decidendi: When an efficacious statutory remedy is available against a summoning order, inherent jurisdiction should not be invoked to bypass that remedy and cause prejudice by depriving the litigant of the appropriate forum of challenge.

---