IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No. M- 37968 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: March 07,2011 Rai Singh and others ......Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** ORDER Crl.Misc.No. 12638 of 2011 This is an application for placing on record the Panchayatnama and statements recorded during the course of investigation as Annexures P-3 to P-6. Crl.Misc.is allowed and Panchayatnama and statements recorded during the course of investigation are taken on record as Annexures P-3 to P-6. Crl.Misc.No. M-37968 of 2010 This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners to challenge the summoning order dated 14.10.2009 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh, District Mansa on the application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the summoning order on the ground that the complaint was counter-blast Crl.Misc. No. M- 37968 of 2010 [2] of the partition proceedings taken by the petitioners in connivance with the police. FIR No. 6 dated 22nd June, 2008 was registered under Sections 324, 323 /34 IPC at Police Station Sardulgarh by making false and frivolous allegations against the petitioners and their family members. The petitioners have been summoned on the basis of application moved by the Public Prosecutor on the statement of PW-1 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. which was allowed vide order dated 14th October, 2009 and petitioners have been summoned as additional accused to face trial. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Bholu Ram v. State of Punjab and another 2008(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 187 in support of their contention. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. whereas the impugned order is revisable and no such remedy has been availed. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of the present case as nowhere it has been mentioned that there is no other remedy except under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the extra-ordinary inherent powers are there under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but in presence of an alternative remedy those inherent powers cannot be exercised in presence of an alternative remedy as the learned counsel for the petitioners has not made out any case for exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No ground is made to interfere with the impugned order Crl.Misc. No. M- 37968 of 2010 [3] and the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to avail an alternative remedy available under the law. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE March 07, 2011 raghav