JUDGMENT 1. - The brief facts giving rise to this miscellaneous application are that a complaint was filed by the applicant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate on 22-9-76. After the completion of trial and hearing the parties, the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Tijara acquitted all the accused-non-applicants on 4-10-80 and in the same judgment the learned Magistrate ordered that proceedings u/s 250, Cr. PC may be initiated against the complainant party to give compensation to the accused persons. Aggrieved by this order the applicant filed special leave to appeal in this Court, but leave to appeal was not granted by this court vide order dated 2-12-80, but it was directed in this order that the case may be registered as a petition u/s 482, Cr. PC in order to see the validity of the order regarding initiating proceedings u/s 250, Cr. PC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. I have also considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the accused non-applicants were acquitted on the ground that the learned trial court observed that the case against the accused-non-applicants has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the complainant He further submitted that the complainant can be called upon to show cause u/s 250, Cr. PC only when there are no reasonable grounds for making accusation against the accused persons. Section 250. Cr. PC cannot be applied when the accused persons are acquitted while extending to them the benefit of doubt. In the given case, the trial court simply ordered to issue a show cause notice to the complainant. The complainant is at liberty to plead that he cannot be saddled with compensation and this is possible u/s 250(2), Cr. PC. The trial court is fully competent to withdraw the notice or drop the proceedings if it is satisfied that the explanation given by the complainant is reasonable. It is thus clear that u/s 250(2), Cr. PC an alternate remedy is proved for the complainant. In these proceedings the complainant will have full right to defend the notice of showing cause for allowing compensation to the accused. It is thus clear that u/s 250(2), Cr. PC an alternate remedy is proved for the complainant. In these proceedings the complainant will have full right to defend the notice of showing cause for allowing compensation to the accused. It has been made obligatory on the part of the magistrate to record and consider any cause which such complainant or informant may show, and if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for making the accusation, he may drop the proceedings. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant referred to the case Natesa Udayar v. Kanagasabai Udayar and Others AIR 1954 Mad. 279 in support of his arguments. In this case the complainant initially appeared before the trial court and filed a reply to the show cause notice which was issued to him. But the magistrate was not satisfied with the reply submitted by him in that case and so he awarded compensation to the accused persons. It is thus clear that the facts of this case are quite different to the case referred to by the learned counsel. 5. Inherent powers of the High Court are to be used sparingly and that too to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. A decision to issue notice cannot be said to be an abuse of the process. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused-non-applicants and at that time it was felt by the learned magistrate that notice to show cause as to why the complainant should not pay compensation to the accused persons be issued. This is not a final order. As observed above, even after the decision of issuing notice the magistrate is fully competent to drop the proceedings in case he is satisfied with the reply of the complainant which is filed in response to the show cause notice. After considering the reply of the complainant, if any compensation is awarded to the accused person, then also under section 250, Cr. PC there is a provision of appeal against such an order. It is thus clear that alternate remedy is available to the complainant and as such inherent powers cannot be exercised. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present application is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. PC there is a provision of appeal against such an order. It is thus clear that alternate remedy is available to the complainant and as such inherent powers cannot be exercised. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present application is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. It will be upon for the complainant to file a reply before the trial court in response to the notice which has been issued or is be issued in compliance to the order dated. 4.10.80.Application dismissed. *******