Judgment Nirmal Singh, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 5.9.2000 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Malout, in a complaint titled "Gurdit Singh v. Mangat Ram Raj Kumar" dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for recalling the order of summoning and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom. 2. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners conceded that the impugned order is revisable order. When an order is revisable, there is specific provision under the Cr.P.C. i.e. under Section 397 that a revision lies to the Court of Sessions and a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. In this regard, reliance can be placed on Balabhadra Dash and another v. State of Orissa and others, 1991 Crl.L.J. 2457 in which his Lordship has held as under :- "Inherent power is wide in nature and S. 482 in Cr.P.C. having been made to secure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court, such power is to be exercised with great restraint. Wider would be the power, greater should be the restraint. Ordinarily, trial of an accused in a criminal prosecution is to be concluded under the provisions of criminal procedure code and High Court would be reluctant to conclude the same at an interim stage. Therefore, prayer for quashing charge or taking cognizance ought not to be entertained in a routine manner and unless High Court is satisfied that there is abuse of process of Court or ends of justice demands it, such prayer ought not to be entertained. Even if, such prayers are entertained, all endeavours should be made to examine if the abuse of powers of Court can be eradicated without bringing the proceedings to an end in the midway. Where accused would be put to such inconvenient position that subsequent examination of these questions would materially affect him which would be irreparable in nature, High Court can for reasons to be recorded in that regard, examine the materials to interfere with the continuance of trial. Therefore, where all the accused persons had an opportunity to advance submissions before the Magistrate that materials on record do not call for framing of charge against them, High Court declined exercise of inherent powers for quashing cognizance. Therefore, where all the accused persons had an opportunity to advance submissions before the Magistrate that materials on record do not call for framing of charge against them, High Court declined exercise of inherent powers for quashing cognizance. In subordinate authority normally higher authority should not exercise its powers to give same relief." In Mohan Lal another v. State, Opposite Parties, 1974 Crl.L.J. 1407 it has been held as under :- "The inherent power of the High Court under that provision, to my mind, cannot be pressed in aid for the purposes of indirectly undoing or modifying an order which is appealable or revisable and has become final because no appeal or revision was filed against it or having been filed were dismissed thus giving finality to the same. The order of the learned Magistrate dated 17th January, 1969 and the appellate order therefrom are not in challenge in these proceedings." 3. In view of the above observations, the petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioners, if so advised, may file a revision before the Sessions Judge. If any delay is caused, the petitioners are at liberty to move an application for condonation of delay, which can be considered by the learned Sessions Judge, according to law and the period i.e. from 18.1.2001 when the revision was filed in this Court till date may be excluded for the purpose of limitation.