CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-18933 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 02, 2011 Sanjay Kalsi and others .....Petitioner VERSUS Dimple ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. R. S. Sihota, Sr.Advocate with Mr. G. K. Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ankit Goel, Advocate for Mr. Govind Goel, Advocate, for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The present prayer made by the petitioners for quashing of complaint dated 26.4.2003 under Sections 406, 498-A IPC and for quashing the subsequent proceedings is not the first approach by the petitioners. It appears from the record that the earlier similar petition seeking quashing of the same complaint was filed but got dismissed as not pressed on 6.10.2003 with liberty to file an appropriate application before the trial court for dropping of the criminal proceedings against them or for their discharge in accordance with law. The petitioners thereafter had filed an application before the trial CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-18933 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 2 }: court for dropping the proceedings, which application was dismissed on 6.2.2006. The petitioners thereafter filed a revision against this order before this court, which was again got dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise all these points at an appropriate stage before the trial Court. In this background, the first question which would directly stare at the petitioners is in regard to the maintainability of the present petition to seek quashing of the complaint. When confronted with the same, the only argument, which, senior counsel for the petitioners could raise is that the trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year by this court while permitting withdrawal of the revision petition filed by the petitioners but the trial has not been concluded so far. Even if that be so, it would not give any right to the petitioners to file a separate petition seeking quashing of the complaint, which course the petitioners had earlier adopted long ago in the year 2003 but had got their petition dismissed as not pressed with liberty as already noticed. Thereafter, the petitioners had invoked the liberty which they had sought and was granted. Having adopted this course, the petitioners cannot now, under the garb of present petition, revive their previous prayer for quashing by filing a fresh petition now after a lapse of so many years, when once the trial is in progress. It can be noticed here that it is within the jurisdiction of the trial Court to decide the correctness of the allegations made by wife and the High Court would not usurp the jurisdiction by quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked when alternative specific remedy is CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-18933 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 3 }: available before the lower court. In this case, the petitioners had withdrawn their earlier quashing petition with liberty to raise all the pleas before the trial court, which they did. The petitioners now cannot be again allowed to revert back and invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 having failed in their efforts before the trial Court and as well before this Court in the revision that they filed. The inherent powers of the high Court can and should only be invoked in case a remedy of appeal or revision is not available. This is a case where the petitioners have already unsuccessfully approached this Court by way of revision. This certainly can be considered as a bar for the petitioners to invoke inherent jurisdiction. In my considered opinion, the preset quashing petition in the facts and background of this case under the circumstances is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed. November 02, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE