K. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (TCode for short), the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, talcher, taking cognizance of an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against him. ( 2 ) THE opposite party is the complainant. His case in brief is that the petitioner, a dealer of levy cement, approached him on 27-9-1985 saying that he had a permit of 240 bags of cement and unless the price thereof was deposited by 30-9-1985 the permit would lapse. He requested the opposite party, who was in need of cement, to pay Rs. 13,200/- to him so that the amount could be deposited towards the price of the cement for release of the stock. The opposite party believed the representation of the petitioner and immediately handed over a cheque payable by the U. Co. Bank, Dera to the petitioner in presence of witnesses. Two days thereafter the petitioner met and requested him to arrange accommodation for storage of cement, Accordingly, the opposite party arranged accommodation. Two days thereafter the petitioner again approached the opposite party and informed him that due to some departmental difficulties the stock of cement could not be lifted and assured that the same would reach soon thereafter. But the petitioner was not to be seen at all and 240 bags of cement were never supplied to him. On 23-5-1986 the petitioner denied to have taken money in the shape of cheque from the opposite party. Subsequently, on enquiry the opposite party learnt that the petitioner utilised the sum of Rs. 13, 200/- by drawing a demand draft in favour of the Civil Supplies Officer, Dhenkanal along with cash, in total, amounting to Rs. 18,000/ -. It was stated that from the very inception of the transaction the petitioner intended to cheat him of a huge amount and so he committed an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 3 ) THE learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate made an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code by examining a witness produced by the opposite party and was satisfied that there were materials for presuming that the petitioner had committed an offence of cheating. Therefore, by the impugned order he took cognizance of the offence and issued process. ( 3 ) THE learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate made an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code by examining a witness produced by the opposite party and was satisfied that there were materials for presuming that the petitioner had committed an offence of cheating. Therefore, by the impugned order he took cognizance of the offence and issued process. ( 4 ) THE petitioner being aggrieved filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, who on re-examination of the materials arrived at the self-same conclusion and dismissed the revision petition. Thereafter the petitioner has approached this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code because of non-maintainability of a second criminal revision under Section 397 (3) thereof. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing Mr. S. D. Das appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B: B. Ratho appearing for the opposite party , I find that there are two huddles for the success of thy criminal revision. The first huddle is the concurrent finding recorded by the learned courts below that there were prima facie materials for taking cognizance of an offence under section-420 of the Indians Penal Code. On consf4eration of the facts stated in the complaint petition, as well as in the statements made during the enquiry, it is apparent that the petitioner made a representation to the opposite party and accepted a huge amount of money for supply of cement, but subsequently he denied that he had ever accepted the amount from the opposite party. If this was the position, then it can hardly be said that it is a case of civil nature because of breach of alleged contract as contended by Mr. Das. The second huddle is the legal bar created under Section 397 (3) of the Code. A second revision by the self-same party who did not succeed before the learned Session Judge in the first revision is not maintainanle. Substantially a revision petition is not maintainable in the garb of a petition under Section 482 of the Code. It is well known that inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code should be very sparingly exercised only in suitable cases if there is gross miscarriage of justice. Such powers can be exercised even in a case of second revision barred under Section 397 (3) of the Code. It is well known that inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code should be very sparingly exercised only in suitable cases if there is gross miscarriage of justice. Such powers can be exercised even in a case of second revision barred under Section 397 (3) of the Code. But there is a case which has been considered and materials examined by two courts with concurrent findings that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner for the offence of cheating. Therefore, it cannot be said that there shall be gross miscarriage of justice unless this Court would interfere by application of the provisions of Section 482 of the Code. ( 6 ) BEFORE parting with the case I would like to observe that further materials with regard to the transaction, if any, a3 alleged in the complaint petition would be available when the prosecution would lead evidence; At that stage it will be known very clearly as to whether the petitioner had intended to cheat the opposite party from the very inception of the transaction or it was a case of breach of contract. The petitioner shall be free to move the appropriate Court at that stage over again to consider his case of breach of contract if there shall be materials to support such a plea in Sagarmull Parekh and anr. v. Gangaram Chhapolia. At this stage, however, I do not find adequate materials on record to allow the petition. ( 7 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the criminal misc. case is dismissed. The lower court records be sent back at once.