Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. This application is directed against the order dated 22.9.93, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ballia in Case No. 86-M of 1978 whereby and whereunder the proceeding of restoration of possession in respect of the land pursuant to an order passed in a proceeding under section 145 Cr. P. C. has been stayed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the ground that a fresh proceeding u/s. 145 Cr. P. C. is pending with respect to the land in question, which may be adversely affected if the order in the earlier proceeding for delivery of possession is given effect to. 2. In short, the case of the petitioner is that on the report of Ballia Police for action u/s. 144 Cr. P. C. with respect to 5 dhurs of land in Mouza Ballia, Bazar, Thana No. 627, Touzi No. 10119, Khata No. 778, Khasra No. 2392, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate initiated a proceeding under the said provisions and the same was later converted into a proceeding u/s. 145 Cr. P. C. The said proceeding was finally decided vide order dated 1.6.89, whereunder, as per the provisions -contained in sub-section (4) of sec. 145 Cr. P. C. the Petitioner was finally found in possession before being dispossessed and as such the order for restoration of possession was also passed in terms of section 145(6) Cr. P. C. on 1.6.89. It is stated that against the said order the opposite party No. 2 preferred a Cr. Revision No. 124/89 before the Sessions Judge, Begusarai which was dismissed by order dated 4.12.89. Thereafter a suit was filed, by the opposite party No.2 for declaration of title vide T. S. No. 185 or 89 in the Court of Munsif 1st, Begusarni and an injunction was also prayed against the aforesaid order dated 1.6.89. The prayer for injunction was rejected vide order dated 15.1.93, a photo copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 3. It appears that opposite party No.2 and others preferred Misc. Appeal No. 3/93. Against the said order, which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Begusarai by order dated 27.4.93. The opposite party No.2 thereafter filed C. R. No. 1350 of 93 which was also rejected by this Court, vide order dated 7.9.93. A photo copy of the certified copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure 5. 3. Against the said order, which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Begusarai by order dated 27.4.93. The opposite party No.2 thereafter filed C. R. No. 1350 of 93 which was also rejected by this Court, vide order dated 7.9.93. A photo copy of the certified copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure 5. 3. In the meantime, after bifurcation of Ballia Sub-Division a petition for restoration or possession before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ballia was filed on behalf of the petitioner. However, O.P. No.2 and others again filed a petition for initiation of a proceeding u/s. 144 Cr. P.C. before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Ballia with respect to 2 kathas of land which included 5dhurs of land in respect of which final order was passed regarding restoration of possession in. the proceeding under Sec. 145 Cr. P. C. The subsequent proceeding was also converted into the proceeding u/s. 145 Cr. P.C. in which the O.P. No.2 filed an application that since the proceeding u/s. 145 Cr. P. C. is pending in respect of 2 kathas of land of S.P. No. 2329 which included 5 dhurs of land of the previous proceeding, the restoration of possession over 5 dhurs of land be stayed and accordingly the impugned order was passed. 4. The petitioner thereafter went in revision being No. 74/94 against the aforesaid order which was dismissed vide order contained in Annexure 6. The learned Sessions Judge held that if the possession was delivered it might create more trouble between the parties and therefore, he found that the order passed by the learned Magistrate to be justified in staying the recovery of possession. The present Cr. Misc. Application has been filed against the said order. 5. By order dated 14.11.94 notices were directed to be issued to O.P. Nos. 2 to 6 so that this application may be finally disposed of at the stage of admission itself and pending admission of this application, the operation of the impugned order was stayed. It appears that the notice was served on O.P. Nos. 2 to 6, but they have not entered appearance. Accordingly, the application is being disposed of on the materials available on the record. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of stay, staying delivery of possession pursuant to the order passed in the earlier proceeding passed u/s. 145 Cr. 2 to 6, but they have not entered appearance. Accordingly, the application is being disposed of on the materials available on the record. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of stay, staying delivery of possession pursuant to the order passed in the earlier proceeding passed u/s. 145 Cr. P.C. is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as once the stay proceeding has attained its finality by even the revisional Court the second proceeding with respect to the same land between the same parties is barred. According to the learned Counsel the impugned order staying the restoration of possession of the petitioner with respect to 5 dhurs of land is the abuse of the process of the Court and is thus, fit to be set aside on this ground alone. 7. I am quite conscious that the impugned order of the S.D.M. Ballia being an interlocutory order, the revision filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Judge was not maintainable. However, it appears that the Sessions Judge also decided the same on merit and affirmed the impugned order passed by the S.D.M. Balia. Thus, in my opinion, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case the jurisdiction of this Court u/s. 482 Cr. P.C. is fit to be invoked. It is well settled that if a case falls within the field of sec. 482 Cr. P.C. the prohibition under sections 397 and 399 Cr. P. C. are not attracted. If an order requires interfence to secure the ends of justice sec. 482, Cr. P.C. can be invoked by the High Court. A reference can be made to a decision of Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 258. In the instant case, I find that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ballia by passing the impugned order which was affirmed in revision has completely acted in the abuse of the process of the Court and to prevent the same it is a fit case for exercise of the jurisdiction vested in this Court u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. 8. In the result, the application is allowed and the order dated 22.9.92 passed by the S.D.M. Ballia in Case No. 86M/78 and the order of the Sessions Judge dated 26.1.94 (Annexure 6) affirming the same are quashed in so far as it relates to the land in respect of which the final order had been passed earlier.