Bhima Naik And Ors. vs State on 16 May, 1975
5. Mr. B. M. Patnaik, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner did not dispute the position that the impugned order is an interlocutory order and that the principles enunciated in XLI (1975) 41 Cut LT 674 : 1975 Cri LJ 1923 are applicable to the present case, but contended that the said decision requires re-consideration by a larger Bench His further contention is that Section 397(2) Cr. P.C. bars only the revisional jurisdiction but not the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. It is vehemently argued that the Court can quash the impugned order in exercise of its inherent power which is not affected or limited by any of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.