Inherent criminal jurisdiction cannot replace revision against an affirmed conviction, and compromise alone does not justify bypassing the statutory remedy.

Where an appellate order affirming conviction is challenged, the Code of Criminal Procedure's specific revisional remedy under Sections 397 and 401 governs, and inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 should not be used as an alternative where that remedy is available. A compromise between the parties does not, by itself, create an exceptional circumstance justifying bypass of revision; settlement may still be considered in revision. The extraordinary power under Section 482 remains confined to rare cases of abuse of process or grave injustice. The commentary therefore treats revision as the proper route and excludes routine resort to inherent powers.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable against an order of conviction affirmed in appeal when a revisional remedy is available; (ii) Whether a compromise between the parties constitutes an exceptional circumstance justifying invocation of inherent jurisdiction instead of revision.

Issue (i): Whether a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable against an order of conviction affirmed in appeal when a revisional remedy is available.

Analysis: The availability of a specific remedy under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 governs challenges to an appellate order affirming conviction. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 is extraordinary and is not to be invoked where the statute provides an adequate remedy. The nature of the impugned order, being a final order of conviction affirmed in appeal, places the matter within the revisional field.

Conclusion: The petition under Section 482 was not maintainable for assailing the conviction affirmed in appeal, and the proper remedy was revision.

Issue (ii): Whether a compromise between the parties constitutes an exceptional circumstance justifying invocation of inherent jurisdiction instead of revision.

Analysis: Compromise by itself does not create an exceptional situation warranting bypass of the revisional remedy. Settlement can be considered even in revision, and the existence of compromise does not displace the normal statutory route. The extraordinary power under Section 482 is reserved for rare cases involving abuse of process or grave injustice.

Conclusion: Compromise was not accepted as a sufficient ground to invoke Section 482 in place of revision.

Final Conclusion: The criminal miscellaneous petition was rejected for want of maintainability, leaving the parties to the ordinary revisional remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a specific revisional remedy is available against an appellate affirmation of conviction, inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should not be used except in rare and compelling circumstances; a compromise between the parties does not by itself justify bypassing that remedy.

---