SL. No. Dat e Of f ice Not es, r epor t s, or ders or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 2025:UHC:10766 WPCRL No.1594 of 2025 Hon ’ble Ash ish Nait h an i, J. Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of Criminal Case No. 39 of 2023 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the summoning order dated 07.02.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. A further prayer has been made for stay of the proceedings. 3. Having considered the submissions and perused the record, this Court finds that the relief sought is essentially directed against the summoning order and the continuance of the criminal proceedings. Relief of this nature falls squarely within the inherent jurisdiction preserved under Section 482 of the Code. The supervisory power under Article 227, by contrast, is narrow in scope and is confined to cases of patent jurisdictional error, grave perversity, or manifest miscarriage of justice. 4. The Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329, has authoritatively held that Article 227 cannot be invoked as an alternative to statutory remedies, nor can it be exercised as an appellate or revisional jurisdiction. The Court emphasised that supervisory jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the subordinate court has acted without jurisdiction or in disregard of fundamental procedural mandates. The present challenge does not disclose any such exceptional circumstance. 5. The summoning order dated 07.02.2023 does not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity. The contentions urged by the Petitioner pertain to the sufficiency of material and the merits of the claim under Section 125 of the Code, which lie outside the limited contours of Article 227. As an efficacious and specific remedy under Section 482 of the Code is available for the nature of the relief sought, invocation of supervisory jurisdiction is impermissible. 6. In view of the above, the petition under Article 227 is dismissed as not maintainable. The Petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court under Section 482 of the Code, if so advised. No opinion is expressed on the merits of the matter. ( Ash ish Nait h an i, J.) 0 3 .1 2 .2 0 2 5 Nitesh/