Short Note : Shri K.M. Agrawal Advocate for the applicant No.1 contended that he was pressing this revision only on behalf of applicant No.1 and not on behalf of applicants 2 and 3. He contended that the order dated 4-11-1974 was wrong as the statement of Shri Trivenilal Shrivastava Advocate, did not constitute abetment u/s 107/109 of the IPC. He further contended that the name of applicant No.1 was joined as an accused at the instance of Lakhanlal Mishra, a private party when in the challan, the State has not joined him. I have considered the submissions of Shri Agrawal and find them without substance. Held : A Magistrate has powers to take cognizance of any offence u/s 190 of the Cr. P. Code. He was thus acting within his jurisdiction while ordering the joinder of the applicant No.1 Shri Agrawal contended that the evidence of Shri Trivenilal Shrivastava does not prima-facie make out a case or abetment. Shri Agrawal pointed out certain defects in the statement of Shri Trivenilal Shrivastava. It will be sufficient to mention here that the question of abetment has to be decided on the facts of each case and the Magistrate after perusal of the police papers and other records, founds prima-facie material for joinder of applicant No.1 as a party. In this revision, therefore, it is not necessary to critically examine the question of amendment when the Magistrate after perusal of the papers, felt satisfied that a prima facie case was made out. 2. Moreover, the order of joinder of a person as an accused is an interlocutory order and u/s 397(2) of the new Cr. P. Code, powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, enquiry, trial or other proceedings. In this connection reference may be made to 1976 M.P.L.J. 33 (Chironjilal Ramjibhai and Co. v. Chunarmal Motiram and Co. and others. Thus the order in question being an interlocutory order no revision against it could be entertained. 3. Shri Agrawal contended that the order on the face of it, being incorrect, this Court should exercise its inherent power u/s 482 of the CrPC. But this power can be exercised to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of any process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 3. Shri Agrawal contended that the order on the face of it, being incorrect, this Court should exercise its inherent power u/s 482 of the CrPC. But this power can be exercised to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of any process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. None of these circumstances exist in this case and therefore, there is no case made out for exercise of inherent power more so, when the Magistrate has acted within his jurisdiction to add an accused on the basis of the material placed before him 1976 MPLJ 33 relied on. Revision dismissed.