JUDGMENT J.M.L. Sinha, J. - This is an application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts leading up to this application can briefly be stated as under : On 3rd of November 1973, Bal Kishan, hereinafter to be called opposite party no. 1 filed a complaint in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate (J), Varanasi against the present applicants, inter alia, alleging that on 14th October, 1973, they went in a body to the house of opposite party no. 1, and forcibly took-away his paddy crop lying there. It was further alleged by the opposite party that when he and other members of his house asked the applicants to refrain from doing thatt high-handed act, the applicants threar tened and intimidated them. They also took away with them the opposite party no. 1 along with some other persons to the thana and beat them there. On these allegations it was prayed that the applicants be prosecuted for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 395 and 397, IPC. After having recorded the statement of the complainant u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the preliminary evidence u/s 202 of the Code, the learned Magistrate summoned the applicants to stand trial for the offence u/s 395, IPC. 2. It appears that before the Magistrate an objection was raised by the applicants, inter alia, alleging that the proceedings should be governed by the old code and not the new code and further that no case was made out against the applicants. This objection was rejected by the learned Additional District Magistrate (J) vide his order dated 4th November, 1975, with the observation that it was the new Code which was applicable and consequently he had no option except to commit the applicants to the Court of Sessions. Aggrieved against that order of the Magistrate, the applicants filed a revision in the Court of Sessions which revision too resulted in dismissal. 3. The applicants have now moved this application alleging that no offence u/s 395, IPC was made out against any of the applicants on the allegations made in the complaint and, consequently, the case was triable by the Magistrate and not by the Court of Sessions. It was further alleged that since the alleged seiaure of crops had been made by the applicants nos. It was further alleged that since the alleged seiaure of crops had been made by the applicants nos. 1, 2 & 3 in connection with an investigation of an offence, no offence whatsoever was at all made out against the applicants. The applicants accordingly prayed that the complaint pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (under the old Code A D.M. (J)) be quashed or, in the alternative, a direction may be issued to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to proceed with the case under the old Code. 4. The contention put by the learned Counsel for the applicants in the fore-front of his arguments, before me was that this Court should quash the complaint pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the entire proceedings thereunder, as they amount to abuse of the process of Court. learned Counsel vehemently urged that the alleged seizure had been made by applicant no. 1, who happened to be the Station Officer of Police Station Chandauli, in connection with a report of theft lodged at the thana. learned Counsel urged that the present complaint was filed by the opposite party no. 1 only by way of Peshbandi and to pressurise the applicant no. 1 to drop the proceedings. 5. The law is well settled that in exercise of the extra ordinary powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (previously 561-A) this Court should proceed on the assumption that the allegations contained in the complaint are correct. If the Court finds that on the allegations, as contained in the complaint, no offence whatsoever is made out, action can be taken u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the complaint and the proceedings hereunder. If, however, the allegations contained in the complaint are sufficient to make out an offence and call for an investigation, it is not permissible for this Court to exercise its powers under, Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for in so doing, it usurps the powers of the trial Court. 6. Reverting to the facts of this case, it was clearly mentioned in the complaint that all the applicants went to the house of opposite party no. 1 on 14th of October, 1973, and forcibly carried away the paddy crop of the opposite party lying there. 6. Reverting to the facts of this case, it was clearly mentioned in the complaint that all the applicants went to the house of opposite party no. 1 on 14th of October, 1973, and forcibly carried away the paddy crop of the opposite party lying there. It is also alleged that in doing so not only that threats were extended to opposite party no. 1 and other members of his family, but that he was also caught hold of and taken to the police station. To put it differently, opposite party no. 1 was also wrongfully restrained or wrongfully confined in the process of forcibly carrying away the paddy crops. The allegations, if proved, would clearly make out an offence u/s 395, IPC The question whether the allegation is true or not cannot be investigated in the present proceedings. 7. As for the alternative prayer Contained in the present application, I do not think even that has any substance. The applicants had been summoned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to stand their trial u/s 395, IPC, That order had been passed before the commencement of the new Code. In cases u/s 395 IPC a Court has only to make an enquiry in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter XVIII of the Code. It would, therefore, follow that when the new Code came into force, an enquiry was pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the complaint filed by opposite party no. 1. Section 484 of the new Code, no doubt, states that, if there was any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending in any Court on the date of the commencement of the new Code, such appeal, application, trial, enquiry or investigation shall be disposed of, continued, held or made as if the new Code had not come into force. There is, however, a proviso appended to Section 484 which reads as follows : Provided that every inquiry Under Chapter XVIII of the Old Code, which is pending at the commencement of this Code, shall be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Code. As already indicated earlier, it was an enquiry Under Chapter XVIII of the old Code which was pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, when the new Code came into force. As already indicated earlier, it was an enquiry Under Chapter XVIII of the old Code which was pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, when the new Code came into force. That being so, it was the new Code which applied and not the old Code. 8. Reference was also made by the learned Counsel for the applicants in his arguments before me to the order passed by the Sessions Judge in the revision that was filed against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. On a perusal of the present application, however, I find that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge has not been challenged. It is only the order passed by the Magistrate that has been challenged. That apart, the order of the Sessions Judge, it appears related to the question as to whether it was the new Code or the old Code which was to apply to the proceedings pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. I have already stated earlier that, in view of the proviso appended to Section 484(2) of the new Code, it was the new Code which governed the proceedings. Therefore, even if the order of the Sessions Judge were challenged in the present proceedings, I do not think it would have been possible for this Court to disagree with the Sessions Judge. 9. This application accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed. The stay order dated 5-12-1975 is vacated. The Court below shall be apprised of this order forthwith to enable it to proceed with the case according to law.