IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3792 of 2008() ------------------------- N.4333/2008 OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MINI SIVADAS, VAZHAVELIL HOUSE CHENGALAM SOUTH VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM-1. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMARAKOM, KOTTAYAM. 3. MATHEW @ ACHENKUNJU, MARANIYAKAM HOUSE KILIROOR NORTH P.O., KOTTAYAM. R1 & 2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3792 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of October, 2008 O R D E R This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner to assail a final order passed under Section 147 Cr.P.C. by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kottayam. That order can be challenged in revision. The petitioner is not by name party to the proceedings. But the counsel contends that the interests of the petitioner is adversely affected by the order. The petitioner has substantial interest in the subject matter of the dispute and the impugned order is passed without notice to him. In these circumstances it is prayed that this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be entertained. 2. Ordinarily and normally when an order which can be challenged otherwise under law, the parties have to resort to the procedure under the Code to challenge the same. Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are extra ordinary in nature and such inherent jurisdiction can be invoked by the court in exceptional Crl.M.C.No. 3792 of 2008 2 circumstances. Such powers cannot be invoked as a matter of course. Compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to justify the invocation of such jurisdiction. 3. When such jurisdiction is sought to be invoked by a party, who otherwise has a right to challenge the order under the ordinary provisions of the law, such party must explain to court why he is not resorting to the ordinary proceedings and is choosing to challenge the order invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. The counsel for the petitioner was asked to explain. The counsel submits that he is not by name a party before the court below, but that definitely is not a fetter on his right to invoke the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 or 401 Cr.P.C. Counsel, in the course of discussions, fairly concedes that challenge in revision by one of the parties is pending before the Sessions Court. The petitioner, if he wants to challenge the order, can certainly invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the court concerned. The petitioner's option to move the concerned court in revision shall remain unfettered. But I am satisfied Crl.M.C.No. 3792 of 2008 3 that there are no exceptional reasons justifying invocation of the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction. 5. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. will not fetter the rights of the petitioner to mount a challenge against the impugned order by the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction. (R. BASANT) Judge tm