JUDGMENT 1. This misc. petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh dated 18-12-91 whereby he has upheld the order of learned SDM Hanumangarh dated 1-11-91 declaring possession of the respondent No. 2 over disputed 81/2 bighas of land in chak No. 29 SSW. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 Billoresingh (Party No. 1), Amarsingh and Jogindersingh are three brothers. Jogindersingh had 121/2 bighas of land in Chak No. 29 SSW. It has been alleged that the other two brothers had their separate lands and they did not have any right or interest of possession in the land. It has been alleged that Jogindersingh sold five bighas of land in Chak No. 29 SSW Stone No. 98/300 Killas No. 16 to 20 to the petitioner (Party No. 2) by a registered sale deed dated 8-11-76 and sold Killas No. 21 to 25 to one Baldevsingh by a registered sale deed on 8-11-76 and handed over the possession to the purchasers Jogindersingh by another agreement dated 11-10-76 agreed to sale 21/2 bighas of land Killas Nos. 13/10, 14/1 and 15/1 to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was in possession of 121/2 bighas of land since 1976. The respondent No. 2 instituted a suit No. 21/77 under section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in respect of the lands sold and agreed to be sold by Jogindersingh to the petitioner but the Asstt. Collector, Hanumangarh dismissed the suit on 13-7-84, An appeal filed by the respondent was also dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner on 13-3-86. It has been further alleged that the respondent No 2 filed another revenue suit under sections. 83 and 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act along with an application for injunction application on 7-10-86. The aggrieved respondent No. 2 filed an appeal but that too was rejected by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner on 27-7-90. An application under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code was moved by the petitioner (Party No. 2). 83 and 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act along with an application for injunction application on 7-10-86. The aggrieved respondent No. 2 filed an appeal but that too was rejected by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner on 27-7-90. An application under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code was moved by the petitioner (Party No. 2). The learned SDVI Hanumangarh found that there was imminent likelihood of breach of peace as petitioner's father was murdered and he has been involved in other cases, and ordered attachment of the disputed land and appointed Tehsildar as receiver vide his order dated 5-11-1988 Respondent No. 2 moved an application for dropping the proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code The learned SDM held that it is not proper to drop the proceedings, however, allowed the respondent No. 2 to reap the crop from 81/2 bighas and the petitioner from 11/2 bighas of land vide its order dated 1-5-89. On revision, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, vide his order allowed the same on 31-5-89. It is also alleged that after taking evidence, the learned SDM declared possession of-the petitioner over ten bighas of laud on 16-7-91 but on revision by the respondent No. 2 (Party No. 1) the matter was remanded back on 24.7-91 to the learned SDM. On remand, the learned SDM declared the possession of the respondent No. 2 over 81/2 bighas of land and of the petitioner on 11/2 bighas of land. The revision filed by the petitioner against the said order of learned SDM dated 1-11-91 was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1. Hanumangarh on 18-12-91. Hence, this misc. petition. 3. Mr. Kharlia. learned counsel for the non-petitioner has raised a preliminary objection that this petition is not maintainable. He has placed reliance on Ranjan Kumar v. State of Karnataka, Cr LR (SC) 602 ; Iqbalsingh v. State, 1991 Cr. LR (Raj.) 588 ; Maniram v. Mahaveer Prasad, 1991 Cr LR (Raj.) 145 and Gigaram and 10 others v. State of Raj., 1991 Cr LR (Raj.) 708 . He has further submitted that even on merits no inter-fence is called for. 4. Mr. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Addl. LR (Raj.) 588 ; Maniram v. Mahaveer Prasad, 1991 Cr LR (Raj.) 145 and Gigaram and 10 others v. State of Raj., 1991 Cr LR (Raj.) 708 . He has further submitted that even on merits no inter-fence is called for. 4. Mr. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and the learned SDM have erred in declaring the possession of the respondent No. 2 (Party No. 1) over 81/2 bighas of land when .neither any written statement nor any evidence was produced by the respondent No. 2 (Party No. 1) to controvert the written statement and evidence produced by the petitioner (Party No 2). He has also submitted that the learned SDM has erred in considering the report of Tehsildar and the 'Ghatna Bahi' which is not admissible in evidence and thus resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and liable to be set aside under inherent power of this Court. Mr. Chouhan has vehemently opposed the preliminary objection raised by Mr Kharlia and submitted that this petition is maintainable. He has placed reliance on Raju v. State, 1992 Cr LJ 723 , and Chand and Ors. v. State and another (S. B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 509/89, decided on 8.7.92) . 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the case law cited at Bar carefully. 6. As the proposition of law is already well settled, it is not necessary to discuss the entire case law in detail. 7. It is no doubt true that recourse to Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code circumventing the provisions of Section 397(3) is not permissible but at the same time Section 397(3) Criminal Procedure Code cannot limit or effect the exercise of inherent power. This Court to prevent abuse of the process of any Curt or otherwise to secure ends of justice can interfere under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code but the inherent power is exercised very sparingly and each case depends upon the facts of its own. 8. In the instant case preliminary order under section 145(1) Criminal Procedure Code was passed on 25-10.88 and attachment order was passed on 5-11-88. The receiver, Tehsildar took Physical possession of the disputed lands from the respective parties on 21-11-88. The fact of taking of possession has been mentioned in the 'Ghatna Bahi'. 8. In the instant case preliminary order under section 145(1) Criminal Procedure Code was passed on 25-10.88 and attachment order was passed on 5-11-88. The receiver, Tehsildar took Physical possession of the disputed lands from the respective parties on 21-11-88. The fact of taking of possession has been mentioned in the 'Ghatna Bahi'. The Court below has observed that the party No. 2 was not in possession nor he was dispossessed within two months proceeding from the date of appointment of receiver over the disputed land. The report was admitted by both the parties. The petitioner (Party No. 2) has not produced any material in rebuttal showing that he was in possession within proceeding two months or he was dispossessed within that period before the date of proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code, so the argument that the learned SDM has erred in considering the report as it does not disclose as to from whom possession was taken is not tenable particularly when the petitioner has not produced any material otherwise and, therefore. it cannot he presumed that Tehsildar has not taken possession as per 'Ghatna Bahi'. 9. So far as the argument that in the absence of certified copy of the .Ghatna Bahi', it is not admissible in evidence. Mr. Chouhan has placed reliance on Pheliram v. State of Rajasthan, Cr LR (Raj.) 1986-259 and Makhansingh v. Narainpura Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. and another, AIR 1987 SC 1892 , This contention has no substance under the circumstances which the petitioner has failed to file certified copy before the Courts below which he could have filed and, therefore the same cannot be considered at this stage and the cases cited above are not helpful. The proceedings ups. 145 is a beneficial provision enacted with the express object of preserving the peace and the limited question which he examined is that who was in possession within the proceeding two months of filing of the complaint and the title. It is pertinent to note that vide order dated 16-7-91, learned SDM declared petitioner's possession over 10 bighas of land but the same was set aside in the revision filed by Balveersingh vide order dated 24-7-1991 by the Addl. It is pertinent to note that vide order dated 16-7-91, learned SDM declared petitioner's possession over 10 bighas of land but the same was set aside in the revision filed by Balveersingh vide order dated 24-7-1991 by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 as the SDM has not complied with the provisions of Section 145( 4)(6) Criminal Procedure Code and further observed that it has erred in holding that the petitioner was in possession of 10 bighas of land whereas he was in possession of 11/2 bighas only and the matter was remanded back to the learned SDM. Against the order of remand, the petitioner Chandsingh filed a revision petition bearing No. 148/91 before this Court, but the same was dismissed on 29.8-91. Thus, in my opinion, finding of fact cannot be examined in a petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code that too when the petitioner has not been able to show how the orders passed by the Courts below resulted into miscarriage of I justice. Under these circumstances, as already stated the contention raised by the counsel for petitioner cannot be considered at this stage. However, the parties will be free to avail remedy according to law if available to them. In view of this, as discussed above, it cannot be said that there is any abuse of the process of the Court, so as to invoke inherent power of this Court under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. 10. Accordingly, this misc. petition has no force, so it is hereby dismissed on merits also.Petition dismissed. *******