JUDGMENT 1. 1. This is a petition Under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code challenging the legality and validity of the orders dated 23.8.1994 whereby the learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence Under Section 113 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, the Act) against the petitioner on the complaint of Shri Sita Ram Sevalia (Non-petitioner No. 2) and the order dated 3.3.1996 whereby the application of the petitioner raising objection against the jurisdiction of the trial Court to try the case was overruled by the learned Magistrate. 2. Shri Sita Ram, non-petitioner No. 2 had purchased certain shares of the petitioner-company and sent them to the registered office of the company at Delhi for effecting transfer of the shares in his name in its record. The shares were received by the petitioner in its office at Delhi on 16.8.1993. The shares were transferred in his name. But the communication of transferring the shares in his name was forwarded to him as late as on 4.2.1994. The delay, according to the non-petitioner No. 2, resulted in the commission of an offence punishable Under section 113 of the Act. He, therefore, filed a complaint therefor in the Court of the learned Magistrate who took cognizance of the said offence and summoned the petitioner-company as an accused. The order to that effect was made on 23.8.1994. After putting in appearance before the learned Magistrate the petitioner, through its Managing Director Shri Rajendra Prasad Mittal, moved an application dated 27.7.1995 contending therein that the cognizance taken against the petitioner company and its officers was bad in as much as the shares were transferred to the non-petitioner's name on 28.10.1993 and a communication to that effect was posted to the non-petitioner No. 2 on 29.10.1993 which was not, unfortunately, received by him and returned to the petitioner-company whereupon the company sent the same again on 4.2.1994 and was received by the non-petitioner. It was also stated in the application that the Court of the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain and hear the complaint as the cause of action, if any, arose at Delhi. The learned Magistrate found no merits in any of the objections raised by the petitioner and dismissed the application. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has agitated the same points as were raised by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate found no merits in any of the objections raised by the petitioner and dismissed the application. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has agitated the same points as were raised by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate. With reference to Sections 53 & 113 of the Act it was urged that since the documents of transfer were sent by post to the non-petitioner well within the prescribed period of limitation no offence punishable Under Section 113 was committed. With reference to Sections 177 to 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 it was submitted that the acts of transferring the shares and dispatching the share-certificate to the non-petitioner by post were done at Delhi no part of cause of action of filing the complaint for commission of offence Under Section 113 arose within the jurisdiction of the Courts in Rajasthan. 4. On behalf of the non-petitioners it was urged that the orders challenged by way of this petition Under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code were revisable Under Section 397 Criminal Procedure Code by the Session Judge concerned and there were no reasons at all to by-pass his Court. On merits it was submitted that prima facie the offence Under Section 113 of the Act was committed and the cognizance taken was correct. Similarly, since the shares of the petitioners company were saleable commodity at any place and transfer in respect to the transactions of sale could have been requested from the place of sale and purchase of the shares, the court of the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain and hear the complaint. 5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the preliminary objection raised by the non-petitioners be decided first. It is true that the scope of the inherent powers of this Court Under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is wide enough to embrace within its fold all cases of abuse of the process of the Court and perpetuation of injustice by certain orders but at the same time it is also the settled position of law that powers Under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code are extra-ordinary powers of this Court and should, therefore, be exercised sparingly in rarest of rare cases to secure the mode of jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In the instant cause the impugned orders were revisable Under Section 397 Criminal Procedure Code either by the Sessions Judge or by this Court. The alleged wrong done by those orders to the petitioner could have thus been remedied through that forum. There is no reason with the petitioner for not choosing that forum for the redressal of its supposed grievances, if any. Thus it is not of the rarest of rare cases to exercise its powers Under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code by this Court. This petition is liable to be dismissed for that reason. But this application can also be treated as one Under Section 397 Criminal Procedure Code Section 397 Criminal Procedure Code confers concurrent jurisdiction upon this Court and the Sessions Judge in the matter of examining the legality and validity of an order passed by an inferior court. In view of that position of law this application is treated as one Under Section 397 Criminal Procedure Code. But that treatment to this petition does not save it from dismissal on the ground that hierarchy in the procedure has not been followed and no explanation for not challenging the impugned orders before the Sessions Judge Under Section 397 Criminal Procedure Code has been given. In the interest of proper functioning of the Courts and administration of justice "to discourage the increasing tendency of by passing the jurisdiction of the Session Judge" it is necessary that hierarchy of Courts must be followed. Therefore, without expression of any opinion on the merits of the cases of either or of the parties this petition/application Under Section 482/397 Criminal Procedure Code is hereby dismissed.Petition Rejected. *******