D. P. S. CHAUHAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the order dated 19-3-1986 passed by the Special Judge, Etawah, in case No. 32 of 1986, arising out of Crime No. 162 of 1984, Under Section 396, I. P. C. Police Station Civil Lines, Etawah. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief leading to the present case are: One Mahesh Kumar lodgedra F. I. R. at Police Station Civil Lines, Etawah, on 6th September, 1984, under Section 3961397, LP. C. but during the pendency of the investigation one Har Narain died and as a consequence whereof, the charges were converted into one under Section 396, I. P. C. The present applicants are named in the First Information Report. During the investigation, names of following persons, namely - Nepal Singh, Sakatua, Daya Ram, Ashok, Shiv Charan Kailash, Mahesh, Tufan Singh, Gaya Prasad, Jagannath and Ramesh, came into light. Accused Ramesh was absconding inspite of the proceedings under Section 82/83, Cr. P. C. Remaining ten accused persons were put for identification, but the prosecution witnesses knowingly did not recognize anybody as the complainant on account of enmity wanted to get them challenged. Therefore, the ten accused persons vide report dated 16-8-1985 were recommended for discharge under Section 169, Cr. P. C. Accused - Ramesh was not likely to be arrested and the complainants witnesses would not likely to recognize him as they have already told and since about 15 months have elapsed, even otherwise there is no chance of success as such an evidence would be of no value. The investigation of F. I. R. was closed and prayed that it may be accepted. After receiving the final report under Section 169, Cr. P. C. , The Judge called the complainant and heard him and after hearing him summoned the applicants to face trial under Section 396, I. P. C. It was stated in the petition that when the order summoning the accused person was passed, there was no case diary before the court and the court did not examine the complainant on oath, or any of the witnesses before passing the impugned order. Even the complainant did not file his, or any of his witnesses affidavit whereon he wanted to rely on and examine during the trial. Even the complainant did not file his, or any of his witnesses affidavit whereon he wanted to rely on and examine during the trial. It is also stated that when the order summoning the accused person was passed, there was no material before the court except the argument of the complainant so to record the satisfaction that a prima facie case against the applicants under Section 396, I. P. C. made out. It is further stated that the court cannot summon the applicant without examining the complainant and witnesses on oath under Sections 200/202, Cr. P. C. The impugned order says that considering the circumstances that the complainant and his family members are ready to support the prosecution case, the final report is not accepted and it is a fit case where the cognizance would be taken against the accused persons. This order dated 19-3-1986 was based on the facts that the complainant-Mahesh Chandappeared had stated that actually the Investigation Officer had not made any investigation, but suo moto on his own pre the statements of the witnesses. His family members are ready to depose against the accused persons, who committed dacoity due to enmity. The Etawah is the district covered by the U. P. Dacoity Effected Area Act, 1983 vide Notification No. 8111-P/viii-3/81 dated November 5,1981 and the case is triable by the Special Court Accordingly the cognizance was taken by the Special Judge in the present case. ( 3 ) IN A. R. Anlulay v. Ram Das Sriniwas Nayak and Anr. , the Supreme Court has observed: As a court of original criminal jurisdiction in order to make it functionally oriented some powers were conferred by the statute setting up the court. Except those specifically conferred and specifically denied, it has to function as a court of original criminal jurisdiction not being hide bound by the terminological status description of Magistrate, or a court of sessions. Under the Code it will enjoy all powers which a court of original criminal jurisdiction enjoys, save and except the ones specifically denied. Except those specifically conferred and specifically denied, it has to function as a court of original criminal jurisdiction not being hide bound by the terminological status description of Magistrate, or a court of sessions. Under the Code it will enjoy all powers which a court of original criminal jurisdiction enjoys, save and except the ones specifically denied. ( 4 ) THE petitioners objections are two fold - (1) Whether the order summoning the applicants can be justified when there was no material before the Special Judge such as case diary and the complainant not having been examined on oath, nor any of his witnesses, nor even there was any affidavit of any body so to disclose that he wanted to rely during the trial the specified witnesses and (2) When the impugned order was passed, there was no material before the court except the argument of the complainant to record the satisfaction that prima facie case against the applicant under Section 396, I. P. C. is made out and without examining the complainant and witnesses on oath under Section 200/202; Cr. P. C. the order for summoning the accused-persons could not have been passed. ( 5 ) THE counter objection from the complainants side is that since the order summoned the accused person was passed under Section 204 Cr. P. C. , the remedy available of the accused was by way of revision and in this view of the matter the present petitioner under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is incompetent ( 6 ) SO far as the question of material is concerned the final report after investigation as required under Section 173, Cr. P. C. was before the Magistrate which contains the F. I. R. and the other documents such as the statements of the witnesses under Section 161, Cr. P. C. and also the documents relating to the identification. When the final report is submitted, then four courses are open: (i) Court may decline to accept the police report and direct the police to make further investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. (ii) If the evidence disclosed in the final report constituting an offence 191 (b) despite the police report to the contrary. When the final report is submitted, then four courses are open: (i) Court may decline to accept the police report and direct the police to make further investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. (ii) If the evidence disclosed in the final report constituting an offence 191 (b) despite the police report to the contrary. (iii) in the case the final report does not set out the facts constituting the offence but the Magistrate, after perusing the police record before him, has reason to believe that offence has been committed, he may take cognizance, and, (iv) lastly he may accept the report as submitted by the police on being satisfied that the report is not tainted one. ( 7 ) IN the present the F. I. R. itself disclosed the names of the certain accused persons and there was re-question of their identification; Apart from this, the F. I. R. also disclosed the names of the witnesses who are inmates of the complainants house. The Judge naturally taking all these factors and the police record before him as well as the statement of the complaint considered it a case for summoning the accused which he accordingly did under its order dated 9-3-1986. So it is not a case that the Judge passed the order without there being any material. There was no question of examination of the witnesses, or the complainant, or filing of the affidavit at this stage as it was not a complainants case. ( 8 ) SO far as the maintainability of the petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is concerned, for exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this court in the circumstances when the remedy of revision which was available to the applicants has not availed, would it be proper to exercise the power. The Supreme Court in Raj Kapoor v. State (Delhi Administration), has observed: Even so, the general principle pervades this branch of law when a specific provision is made easy resort to inherent power is not right except under compelling circumstances. ( 9 ) IN the present case no compelling circumstances have been disclosed for exercising inherent powers by this court, specially when the petitioners on their own have not availed the remedy available to him under the statute by way of revision. ( 9 ) IN the present case no compelling circumstances have been disclosed for exercising inherent powers by this court, specially when the petitioners on their own have not availed the remedy available to him under the statute by way of revision. ( 10 ) UNDER the circumstances, I do not find it a fit case for interference in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P. C. The application is accordingly rejected. The interim order dated 19-3-1986 is discharged. Petition dismissed. .