M. WAHAJUDDIN, J. The applicant is being prosecuted on a private complaint of the opposite-party under Section 409 Cr. P. C. filed on 25-6-1979. It would appear that in pursuance of a search and seizure warrant issued by the Magis trate concerned, medicines, account books, vouchers etc. have been seized from the premises of Brijendra and Brijendra. The order is Annexure III and the search warrant, also direct ing seizure is Annexure IV. The order was passed on an application preferred by the opposite-party, Annexure 1, supported by an affidavit Annexure II. In the application for search and seizure, it was stated that the belongings are in possession of the accused and prayer for his search and seizure from his place was made. The warrant issued by the Magistrate is, however, not for any personal search or search of the premises of the accus ed person, but it purports to be a warrant for general search. The first ground urged is that there is a violation of Article 20 of the Constitution as any accused person cannot be called upon to furnish any incriminating evidence against him. Reliance has been placed upon the case of State of Gujarat v Shyam Lal Mohan Lal Choksi A. I. R. 1965 S. C. 1251, wherein it was held that no search warrant could be issued to search for docu ments known to be in possession of the accused, but a general search or inspection can still be ordered. The learned counsel for the opposite side relied upon the case of V. S. Rattan Filial v. Ramakrishnan and another A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 185. In that case the following observations have been made: the seizure and further investigation by the Customs Authori ties or the validity of the trial. In this ruling, a number of earlier pro nouncements concerning the matt of search and seizure were considers In the case of Radha Krishna v. State of U. P 1963 Suppl-I,s. C. R, 408, it was held that assuming that the search was illegal the seizure of the article is not vitiated vention of provisions of Section in and 165 Cr. P. C. were pleaded in that case. Similar view was taken in the case of Shyamlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh A. I. R 1972 S. C. 886, and a number of other Supreme Court pronounce ments cited in the aforesaid case. P. C. were pleaded in that case. Similar view was taken in the case of Shyamlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh A. I. R 1972 S. C. 886, and a number of other Supreme Court pronounce ments cited in the aforesaid case. The principles laid down in these pronouncements are that even if the search and seizure is in contravention of any provisions of the Cr. P. c. subsequent steps in the investigation or the proceedings would not I vitiated or affected in any manner. When that is the position, the cant cannot claim the restoration of the seized properties to him when, as per complaint allegations, the complainant claims to be owner thereof and the case is under be section 409 Cr. P. C. The matter involving question of fact would, of course, be examined by the Magis trate and not at this stage here, I am purposely refraining from exercis ing any opinion on such matters that in any way the Magistrate may not be prejudiced. I find that earlier also an applica tion under Section 482 Cr. P. C. was preferred and has been rejected While 1 agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant that the principles of resjudicata are in applicable to criminal proceedings, a such I do feel when inherent powers of the Court are invoked to undo any abuse of the process of law. it is always desirable that all the grounds should be taken and the matter should not be agitated again and again by a number of applications under Section 482 Cr. P. C. taking one ground alter another in succession, because if that is done, it may itself amount to abus ing the process of law. I may also observe that for exer cising the inherent powers, there may not be a bar that any revision could be filed or has not been filed or it has been rejected and in suit able places such powers can also be exercised. In the result, the application is dismissed. The stay order is vacated and the Magistrate may expedite the disposal of this case. .