Judgment Nirmal Singh, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint instituted on 15.1.1987 under Sections 323/504/452/148 and 149 IPC pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mansa and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The petitioners have been summoned after recording the evidence of PW-1 Sita Devi, PW-2 Puran Singh and PW-3 Ramesh Kumar. The summoning order is a revisable order. When there is specific provision under Sections 397 and 401 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, under which a revision lies, then 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 proceeding 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." 3 In Mohan Lal and 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 purpose 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." 4. Even otherwise, from the complaint as well as the averments made in the petition, there are disputed questions of facts with regard to malafide of the complainant, which cannot be decided by this Court in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, this petition is dismissed. 5. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move an application, if so advised, under Section 245 Cr.P.C. and can take all the pleas, which have been taken in this petition. Petition dismissed.