Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit, J.:- Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party no.2, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material on record. 2. By means of instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have prayed for quashing of summoning order dated 8.02.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Sitapur in case Crime No.64 of 2003 under sections 342, 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (I) XII S.C. & S.T. Act of Police Station Machhrehta District Sitapur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that after final report was submitted in case Crime No.64 of 2003 under sections 342, 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (I) XII S.C. & S.T. Act of Police Station Machhrehta District Sitapur, the opposite party no.2 filed the protest application and after recording the statements of complainant and three witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the impugned summoning order was passed. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that all the witnesses were not examined as envisaged under Section 202 (2) Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that from the perusal of F.I.R. it indicates that five witnesses namely, Mohen Lal, Deshraj, Ramadhar, Ram Lotan and Sobran were made witnesses by the complainant but only the statements of witnesses Mohen Lal, Deshraj and Ramadhar was recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. In other words statements of Ram Lotan and Sobran was not recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. which was mandatory under the provisions of Section 202 (2) Cr.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned Additional Government Advocate strongly opposed the contention of learned counsel for the applicants and argued that the impugned summoning order is perfectly legal and is in accordance with the provisions of law. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant do not propose to produce any other witness under Section 202 Cr.P.C. 6. From perusal of the record, it transpires that in the F.I.R. the complainant has cited Mohan Lal, Deshraj, Ramadhar, Ram Lotan and Sobran as witnesses of the occurrence but the complainant has examined only three witnesses, namely, Mohen Lal, Deshraj and Ramadhar under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Offences under Section 376 I.P.C. complained against the applicants is triable exclusively by the Court of Session. The provision of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is reproduced as under : 7. 202. The provision of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is reproduced as under : 7. 202. Postponement of issue of process ? (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit, (and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction] postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding; 8. Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made,- (a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or (b) Where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200. (2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath: Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. (3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer in charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant. 9. From bare reading of the proviso to Section 202 (2) it transpires that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. 9. From bare reading of the proviso to Section 202 (2) it transpires that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. In the instant case, complainant has examined only three witnesses namely, Mohen Lal, Deshraj and Ramadhar and has not examined the other two witnesses Ram Lotan and Sobran under Section 202 Cr.P.C. which was mandatory under the provision of Section 202 (2) Cr.P.C. Instead of running to this Court the applicants could have raised this objection before the court concerned. 10. The provision of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under: “The High Court has the widest jurisdiction to pass orders to secure the ends of justice and, therefore, if the High Court feels that ends of justice require that an order should be made in an application then the High Court will entertain the application is not contemplated by the Court.” 11. The inherent powers are in the nature of extraordinary powers to be used sparingly for achieving the object mentioned in Section 482 of the Code in cases where there is no express provision empowering the High Court to achieve the said object. Inherent power is wide in nature. Such power is to be exercised with great restraint. Wider would be the power, greater should be the restraint. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, it is not a fit case where the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are required to be invoked 13. The applicants are directed to appear before the court concerned within three weeks from the date of order and move an application against the impugned summoning order, if they are so advised. The learned Magistrate shall proceed further with the case, in accordance with law, only after disposing of the objections, if any, raised by the applicants in respect of the examination of witnesses as provided under Section 202 (2) Cr.P.C. 14. Interim order granted earlier by this court stands vacated. 15. With these observations, the petition is disposed of finally. 16. The office is directed to send a copy of the order to the court concerned forthwith.