Inherent powers should not bypass revisional remedies against orders dismissing Section 156(3) CrPC applications.

The petitioner, Tanu Yadav, married Mayank Yadav on November 20, 2021

She alleged persistent physical and mental cruelty for dowry by her stepmother-in-law (Respondent No. 1) and extended in-laws (Respondents No. 2 to 5)

Specifically, she alleged being drugged and assaulted on January 18, 2022, resulting in the theft of her jewelry, and a subsequent assault on January 30, 2022, which led to a miscarriage on February 10, 2022

Despite several complaints to the police between February and March 2022, no FIR was registered

Consequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the JMFC, Gwalior.

The Trial Court rejected the application on July 25, 2022, relying on a police status report

The petitioner challenged this order via the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., alleging that the status report was influenced by Respondent No. 2, who is a DSP

1. Whether a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable when an alternative remedy of Criminal Revision under Section 397 is available.

2. Whether the Trial Court committed a patent illegality in rejecting the application under Section 156(3) based on a police status report.

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the inherent powers of the High Court and Section 397 regarding revisional jurisdiction

It relied on the Full Bench Supreme Court decision in Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan (2016), which established that while the availability of a revisional remedy under Section 397 does not technically bar the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, such power must be exercised sparingly and only under compelling circumstances to prevent the abuse of process

The court also referenced the procedure for private complaints under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C.

The Court observed that the JMFC had exercised judicial discretion by reviewing the police status report before turning down the Section 156(3) application

Regarding maintainability, the Court reasoned that while Section 482 is pervasive, it should not be used to bypass the statutory hierarchy of remedies, specifically the "efficacious remedy" of a Criminal Revision before the Court of Sessions

The Court found the petitioner’s allegation—that Respondent No. 2 influenced the inquiry—unsupported by substantial evidence of a total failure of justice at this stage

Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner was not left remediless because the dismissal of a Section 156(3) application does not prevent the complainant from pursuing a private complaint and examining witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C.

The petition was disposed of with the holding that the petitioner should ideally approach the Revisional Court

The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a Criminal Revision within two months, directing the Sessions Court to decide the matter on its merits and condone any delay

Additionally, the petitioner remains at liberty to proceed with her private complaint under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C.