RAMPAL SINGH, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners pray for quashing the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Shahdol in Criminal Case No. 28 of 1987 by which he directed the complaint to be registered, filed by the non fil ://d :\program applicant under Sections 120b, 193, 200, 409, 468, 471 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, against the applicants. ( 2 ) A complaint was lodged by the non applicant Lal Singh on 3-12-1984 before the Court against 17 accused persons, out of which 15 accused have come before this Court. The Magistrate called for the report of the Police but subsequently recorded the statement of the non-applicant under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code and also recorded the evidence under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code and directed the criminal case to be registered on 6-2-1989. By this order, the case was registered against 17 accused and process was issued against them. ( 3 ) SHORT facts which are necessary to be reproduced are that there is one Nehru Housing Society Shahdol whose members are the present petitioners. Two others and the non-applicant. According to the complaint, all the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy and are alleged to have created bogus membership of the Society which is prohibited by the byelaws. The allegations made in the complaint also disclose, according to the opinion of the learned Magistrate, that a prima facie case, as alleged in the complaint, is made out for issuing the process against the accused persons. After this, petition was filed on 18-12-87, this Court directed further proceedings of the Criminal trial to be stayed. ( 4 ) SHRI Datt, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners contended at the bar that the Magistrate could not take the cognizance when it had directed for an enquiry by the Police. He further contended that annexures filed by the petitioners also discloses that the non-applicant has filed the civil suit at Sahdol against the applicants for declaration and injunction. He further contended that the complaint does not disclose any offence against the petitioners. According to Shri Datt, the Magistrate has not applied his mind and directed the process to be issued. His forceful contention is that the ingredients alleged in the complaint do not find support by any document. He further contended that the complaint does not disclose any offence against the petitioners. According to Shri Datt, the Magistrate has not applied his mind and directed the process to be issued. His forceful contention is that the ingredients alleged in the complaint do not find support by any document. In the end, he raised the point that the Magistrate could not take the cognizance in contravention of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 195 of Criminal Procedure Code, Shri R. N. Singh, learned Counsel for the non-applicant controverted these arguments and maintained that this is not a fit case in which this Court should exercise inherent powers in favour of accused persons. ( 5 ) BEFORE I determine as to whether any interference is called for, I intend to examine the provisions of inherent powers contained in Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the case of Madhu Limye v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court has held that following principles would govern the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of a High Court contained in Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (i) The power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision of the Code for the redress of a grievance of the aggrieved party; (ii) It should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; and (iii) It should not be exercised as against the express bar of the law engrafted in any other provision of the Code. ( 6 ) KEEPING in view these principles, it is to be noted that when a Criminal Court issues the process against any person, the Magistrate does so after finding a prima facie case against the accused. It is also to be noted that when a criminal case is registered by the judicial order and the process issued, the accused can present himself before the Court and show that either he is innocent or there is no evidence against him. The accused further gets an opportunity of cross-examination when the trial begins. During his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused again gets an opportunity of putting up his defence before the Court. The accused further gets an opportunity of cross-examination when the trial begins. During his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused again gets an opportunity of putting up his defence before the Court. The last opportunity provided according to the scheme of the procedural law is that the accused can adduce defence evidence to show that he is not guilty of the offence alleged. Thus, it appears that the petitioners, without availing the provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, rushed to this. Court with a prayer to quash the entire prosecution. Undoubtedly, this Court has powers to quash any Criminal Proceedings if it is of the view that the matter needs judicial correction, that the Court below had no jurisdiction, that the impugned order is completely erroneous and against the provisions of law. This provision under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code does not indicate the High Court to interfere unless most exceptional circumstances are predominant. Furthermore, it is settled that this power should be exercised in rarest of the rare cases and also to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Putting these principles on anvil, I have examined the petition and the documents annexed with it. In my opinion, this case does not come within the orbit of an exceptional case or within the orbit of rarest of the rare case. Clearly, the petitioners without availing the opportunities provided by the Criminal Procedure law have rushed to this Court to invoke its inherent powers. ( 7 ) THE orders of the lower judiciary need not be interfered with this exceptional power in the hands of the High Court is Mt exercised where the orders passed are in accordance with law and are not erroneous or wrong. This Court while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code also cannot substitute its opinion in place of the opinion expressed by the Lower Court. I conclude therefore that this petition is completely misconceived and the petitioners have rushed to this Court without availing the due process of law which is meant for their benefit. As this petition is misconceived, I dismiss it. The orders passed by this Court on 18-12-87 staying the proceedings in a Criminal Court are therefore vacated. I conclude therefore that this petition is completely misconceived and the petitioners have rushed to this Court without availing the due process of law which is meant for their benefit. As this petition is misconceived, I dismiss it. The orders passed by this Court on 18-12-87 staying the proceedings in a Criminal Court are therefore vacated. There had been thus an inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial for which only the petitioners are responsible. I therefore direct the petitioners and other two accused against whom (he Criminal case has been registered and process issued, to appear before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shahdol in Criminal Case No. 28 of 1987 on 1-9-1989. The non-applicant complainant shall also appear before the Trial Court on that very day. It the woman accused cannot appear before the Court, then they can seek and pray for exemption from personal appearance and I am sure that the learned trial Judge shall follow the procedure in this regard. The non-applicant is also directed to adduce his prosecution evidence according to the programme fixed by the trial Judge. With these observations the petition is dismissed. .