In Brief
Appellants filed a suit for specific performance of a land agreement. The respondent later filed a private complaint against them alleging fraud and coercion. The trial court directed police registration under Section 156(3) CrPC. The appellants approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR, but the High Court dismissed the application on the ground that an alternative remedy (revision) was available. The Supreme Court held that mere availability of an alternative remedy cannot bar exercise of inherent powers under Section 482. The judgment reaffirmed that the non-obstante clause in Section 482 enables the High Court to prevent abuse of process regardless of other available remedies. The matter was remanded to the High Court for reconsideration.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.