JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, J. - These two connected applications u/s 561A Code of Criminal Procedure relate to a proceeding u/s 476, Code of Criminal Procedure pending against the two applicants in the court of the learned Munsif, City Kanpur. The proceeding u/s 476, Code of Criminal Procedure arose under the following circumstances. 2. A certain case was pending on the file of the learned Munsif city, Kanpur. In that case Surajbhan Misra filed an affidavit to the effect that, Kapoor Chand Defendant was suffering from influenza. In support of the affidavit a medical certificate issued by Dr. Mauji Lal was filed. The Court perused a report on the same point by another Dr. S.C. Gupta. Dr. Gupta's report was to the effect that Kapoor Chand Defendant was not ill. The learned Munsif thought that, Prima facie Surajbhan Misra's affidavit and the medical certificate issued by Dr. Mauji Lal were both false, and that an inquiry should be made against Surajbhan Misra and Dr. Mauji Lal in this connection. So on 25-7-1957 the learned Munsif passed the following order: Issue warrant of arrest u/s 196, IPC read with Section 195/476/478, Code of Criminal Procedure against the two accused with a Provision for bail.... 3. Surajbhan Misra and Dr. Mauji Lal have filed these two applications u/s 561A Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the learned Munsif's order dated 25-7-1957. 4. The first point that strikes one is that, the order under consideration has been passed by a Civil Court, and that the present applicants are seeking, remedy under a provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question, therefore, arises whether any relief can be granted to the applicants u/s 561A, Code of Criminal Procedure, assuming that the procedure adopted by the learned Munsif is wrong. 5. Mr. D. Sanyal appearing for the applicants contended that, interference under the Code of Criminal Procedure is permissible even if the impugned order has been passed by a Civil Court. In AIR 1931 761 (Lahore) it was held by a Full Bench of Lahore High Court that, irrespective of whether the trial court be civil, criminal or revenue, the procedure on appeal is a procedure udder the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Similarly, in Emperor Vs. In AIR 1931 761 (Lahore) it was held by a Full Bench of Lahore High Court that, irrespective of whether the trial court be civil, criminal or revenue, the procedure on appeal is a procedure udder the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Similarly, in Emperor Vs. Bhatu Sadu Mali, AIR 1938 Bom 225 a Full Bench of Bombay High Court held that, applications in revision from an order under Section; 476B, Code of Criminal Procedure by a Civil Court should be decided by the High Court under the provisions of Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. In Hakim Rai Vs. The State, AIR 1957 P&H 134 a Full Bench of the Punjab High Court held that, where a Civil Court has taken proceedings u/s 476, Code of Criminal Procedure and an appeal against that complaint has been dismissed by the court to which such court was subordinate, a revision against the order of the appellate court falls u/s 439, Code of Criminal Procedure and not u/s 115 Code of Civil Procedure. 8. A different view was, however, taken by a Full Bench of Calcutta High Court in Emperor v. Har Prasad Das 40 ILR Cal. 477. It was held that in such situation Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure has no application. 9. The same view was taken by a majority of the Full Bench in Bhup Kumar's case 26 ILR All. 249. It was held that the High Court had no jurisdiction in the exercise of its revisional powers u/s 439, Code of Criminal Procedure. It was observed by Stanley, C.J.: A High Court has, as it appears to me, the revisional jurisdiction over an order passed by a Munsif or Civil or Subordinate Court u/s 476, conferred by Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that alone. 10. The view taken in Bhup Kumar's case 26 ILR All. 249 was adopted by another Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Manni Lal Vs. Emperor . It was observed that, it is settled law of this Court that proceedings under Sections 476, 476A and 476B are to be regarded as civil or criminal according as they arise out of a civil or criminal case, so that the revisional power of the High Court is subject to the provisions of Section 115, CPC or Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure as the case may be. 11. 11. I should follow the view, which has prevailed in the Allahabad High Court in preference to the view taken by the Punjab, Bombay and Lahore High Courts. I, therefore hold that interference u/s 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, is not permissible when the impugned order has been passed by a Civil Court u/s 476, Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. Mr. D. Sanyal contended that, even assuming that Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure is inapplicable, it is still permissible to issue suitable orders u/s 561A, Code of Criminal Procedure. I do not agree. If it is not permissible to interfere u/s 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, it is difficult to see how the High Court can pass an order u/s 561A, Code of Criminal Procedure cancelling an order passed by a Civil Court. Section 561A, Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the prevention of the abuse of the process of any court. It is true that the expression "any court" has not been explained in the section. But in the context the expression 'any Court' must be understood as equivalent to a criminal court. So it is not possible u/s 561A, Code of Criminal Procedure, to interfere in a case where interference u/s 439, Code of Criminal Procedure is barred. 13. Some complication has been introduced, because the learned Munsif has mentioned Section 478, Code of Criminal Procedure in his order. Section 478, Code of Criminal Procedure gives power to civil courts to complete inquiry and commit a case to the court of, session. Sub-section (2) of Section 478, Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that such proceedings shall be deemed to have been held by a Magistrate. It is not clear what the learned Munsif proposes to do in the present case. The contemplated prosecution is u/s 196, Code of Criminal Procedure. This offence is triable by a first class Magistrate. There is, therefore, hardly any occasion for committing the case to the court of session. The point is not clear from the learned Munsif's order. He has mentioned both Sections 476 and 478, Code of Criminal Procedure. It is not desirable to interfere at this stage of the case. 14. Assuming that the learned Munsif ultimately passes an order adverse to the present applicants, two courses are possible. The point is not clear from the learned Munsif's order. He has mentioned both Sections 476 and 478, Code of Criminal Procedure. It is not desirable to interfere at this stage of the case. 14. Assuming that the learned Munsif ultimately passes an order adverse to the present applicants, two courses are possible. Either the learned Munsif may merely file a complaint u/s 476, Code of Criminal Procedure or he may commit the case to sessions u/s 478, Code of Criminal Procedure. If the court merely files a complaint, the order will be appealable to the learned District Judge of Kanpur. If the Court commits the case to sessions, it will be open to the applicants to come to the High Court on the criminal side for interference with the order of commitment. No interference with the order dated 25-7-1957 is called for at this stage under Section, 561A, Code of Criminal Procedure. 15. The two connected applications u/s 561A, Code of Criminal Procedure are dismissed.