G.M. LODHA, J.—This is an application u/s. 482, Cr.P.C. against the order dated 18-6-86 of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dholpur in Criminal Appeal No. 43/85. 2. Mr. Tyagi has argued that the prosecution u/s 210, IPC is a gross abuse of process of the court because the so called earlier payment was not verified in the court and was wholly based on a concocted false story. In support of his argument, he submitted that when the demand of attachment of the crop was made, this plea was not taken in the year 1976 that the payment has already been made. 3. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner submitted that Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked and in support of his submission he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sooraj Devis case (1). Head Note-B reads as under:- "The inherent power of the court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code. The inherent power of the Court is not contemplated by the saving provision contained in section 362 and therefore, the attempt to invoke that power can be of no avail." 4. He also relied upon the judgment of Calcutta High Court in B.K. Bhomik Vs. M/s. Princess Confectionary (2). 5. There cannot be any dispute about the principles laid down in the above two judgments, but they have got no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. The earlier payment on the basis of Which prosecution has been launched was never got verified in the executing court as required by Order 21, Rule 2, C. P. C, and, therefore, launching of the prosecution u/s 210, I.P.C. in the specific and special circumstances of this case appears to be wholly unjustified. This is more so because earlier attachment was made in 1976 and no plea of earlier payment was taken in the objection file. 7. Consequently, the direction for prosecution u/s 210, IPC only is quashed. It would not mean that the finding of the lower court regarding earlier payment is nullified. 8. The application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. is accepted to this limited extent only.