JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr, PC has been filed by the accused petitioners Hira lal and Sajjan Kumar against the order of learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu dated 10th March, 1987 confirming the order of C.J.M., Jhunjhnu dated 16th February 1982. 2. Brief facts leading to this petition are that one Mohanlal filed a FIR on 4th November, 1980 at police station Malsisar alleging that in the night intervening 3rd and 4th November, 1980. 11 accused persons belaboured his brother Girdhari and inflicted injuries. The police on the said report registered a case under sections 147 and 323 IPC and started investigation. During the investigation it was found that the two petitioners Heeralal and Sajjan Kumar and one Siiravan kumar (since deceased) were falsely implicated due to political rivalty. The police in these circumstance did not file any challan against the present petitioners. The learned Trial Court without recording any further evidence passed an order for taking cognizance against the petitioners along with order accused persons under sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 147, and 149 IPC. 3. The petitioners aggrieved against the order of the learned C.J.M. filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. The revision was dismissed by the Sessions Judge by order dated 10th March, 1987. The petitioners in these circumstances have filed the present petition under section 482 Cr. PC.Learned Public Prosecutor first raised an objection that no petition under section 482 Cr PC is maintainable when a revision filed by the petitioners had been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. I see no force in this contention. It has already been laid down in Nathi lal & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan, Cr. LR (Raj) 1981 Page 212 in the following manner: "The powers of the High Court under section 482 Cr. PC are not controlled by Section 397 Cr. PC of course, it is true to that while exercising inherent powers under section 482 Cr. PC the powers of the High Court are limited, and the same can be exercised in order to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure ends of justice or to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code." 4. A recent decision of Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Kasinath Biswal & Ors. A recent decision of Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Kasinath Biswal & Ors. v. Hina Bohi 1987 CRI L J. 350 has taken the same view. In Raj Kapoor & Ors. v. State Delhi Administration & Ors., AIR 1980 SC 258 and in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 67 in which the Supreme Court has already taken the view that Section 482 Cr. PC confers a separate and independent power of the High Court alone to pass orders ex debito justitiae in case where grave and substantial in justice has been done or where the process of the Code has been seriously abused. It is not merely a revisional power meant to be exercised against the orders passed by subordinate courts. It was under this section that in the old Code, the High Courts used to quash the proceedings or expunge uncalled for remarks against witnesses or other persons or subordinate courts. It was further observed by the Supreme Court that it is well settled that inherent powers under Section 482 of the present Code can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. Further, the power being an extraordinary one it has to be exercised sparingly. These considerations are kept in mind, there will be no inconsistency between sections 482 end 397 (2) of the present code. 5. In view of the above observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, there remains no manner of doubt on the point that the powers of the High Court under section 482 Cr. PC are independent of Section 397 Cr. PC However, such powers under section 482 Cr. PC are to be exercised sparingly and under the Limitations given by the Supreme Court. 6. Now so far as the merits of the present petition are concerned, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned C.J.M. had no jurisdiction at all to take cognizance against the petitioners without recording any evidence by him. in this regard learned counsel has placed reliance on a series of decisions given by this Court in Jalam Chand v. State, 1984 WLN (UC) 398 Mahendra Kumar v. State of Raj., 1984 WLN (UC) 70 , Lichman Singh & Ors. in this regard learned counsel has placed reliance on a series of decisions given by this Court in Jalam Chand v. State, 1984 WLN (UC) 398 Mahendra Kumar v. State of Raj., 1984 WLN (UC) 70 , Lichman Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1985 WLN (UC) 613 and Sheoram Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1982 RLR 550 . 7. The Division Benchs case in Sheoram Singh v. State of Rajasthan dealt with the provisions of Section 319 Cr. PC. So far as the other cases referred to above are concerned are of learned single Judges who have placed reliance on the Division-Benchs case Sheoram Singh v. State of Raj. 8. In my view in Sheoram Singh v. State of Rajasthan it was no where laid down that even the Magistrate is not empowered to take cognizance against the accused persons under section 190 Cr. PC against whom the police have not filed any challan. However, so far as the facts of this case are concerned nearly 7 years have elapsed to the filing of First Information Report and the police had given reasons in the Final report that the names of the petitioners had been included on account of the party friction and enmity. That apart in the statements given by the prosecution witnesses for the second time before the police, the names of the petitioners before this court were not mentioned. Learned Magistrate has given no reasons as to why the above inference drawn by the police was not correct. It may be mentioned that though the learned Magistrate was competent not to accept the report given by the police at the same time adequate reasons should have been recorded by the learned Magistrate in case he wanted to take cognizance against the present petitioners. It would be an abuse of the process of the Court to hold a trial against the present petitioners after a period of seven years when there is no material against them in the evidence recorded during investigation. 9. In the result, this petition is allowed and the orders of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 16th February, 1982 and that of learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu dated 18th March, 1987 are set aside and the order-taking cognizance against the petitioners is quashed.Petition allowed. *******