Judgment ASHOK KUMAR GANGULY, J. 1. Both these applications are disposed of by a common judgment as common questions are involved in these petitions. Crl. Misc. No. 549 of 1995 (R) The subject matter of challenge in this petition is the order of cognizance dated 18-8-1994 by which cognizance for the offences under Sections 323, 427 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh and is pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Hazaribagh. The said case was lodged on the basis of the complaint filed by opposite party No. 2. On the basis of the said complaint the police has submitted charge-sheet under Sections 323, 427 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner also lodged an FIR on 6th January, 1993 and the same has been registered as Mandu P. S. Case No. S dated 6-1-1993 and in connection with the said case the police has submitted final report and protest petition is pending. 3. Various factual questions relating to other proceedings between the parties have been urged to contend that the order taking cognizance is bad. In para 13 of the petition it has stated that before taking cognizance the learned Magistrate ought to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. An application to that effect was also filed (Annexure 6) before the learned Magistrate. 4. It is well settled that at the time of taking cognizance the accused has no status nor any right of hearing. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also conceded the same in course of hearing. This is well settled as would appear from the decision reported in AIR 1963 SC 1430 in the case of Chandradso Singh v. Prakash Chandra and others. In that case the learned Judges of the Supreme Court, on an almost similar situation decided that the accused has no right to take part in the proceeding at the stage when the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence. It is well settled that cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offender, Therefore, the question of hearing the alleged offender at the stage of taking cognizance does not arise. 5. It is well settled that cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offender, Therefore, the question of hearing the alleged offender at the stage of taking cognizance does not arise. 5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has drawn attention of this Court to a decision reported in 1978 PLJR 169 in the case of Dr. Mrs. Sakina Hanif v. Ghulam Haidar and others. In para 7 of the said judgment in has been categorically said that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code under which accused persons can be heard before taking cognizance. This Court obviously is in agreement with the aforesaid opinion expressed by the learned Judge in the said judgment. Crl. Misc. No. 577 of 1995 (R) 6. In this case also the order of cognizance dated 18-8-1994 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh under Sections 342, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code is under challenge. Here also the opposite party No. 2 on 7-1-1993 filed complaint alleging commission of the certain offences and on the basis of which FIR has been lodged and the police submitted charge-sheet and thereafter cognizanee has been taken in the aforesaid case. 7. In this petition various factual aspects have been raised to show that one Harbans Kumar was arrested and was later on enlarged on bail and has committed certain offencse under the Indian Forest Act. The filing of a writ petition before this Court challenging the provision of Forest Conservation Act has been stated. This Court unfortunately is not concerned with those facts. The only question before this Court is to determine the legality or othe wise of the order talcing cognizance in this matter. 8. Id this case also an application was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate praying for an opportunity of hearing of the petitioner before cognizance is taken. The said application at Annexure 8 containing identical avernments. So far as the question of the hearing before talcing cognizance is concerned, this has been discussed already in Crl. Misc. No. 549 of 1995 (R). Obviously no such right exists in law. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality in this order taking cognizance in the matter. 9. So far as the question of the hearing before talcing cognizance is concerned, this has been discussed already in Crl. Misc. No. 549 of 1995 (R). Obviously no such right exists in law. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality in this order taking cognizance in the matter. 9. This Court is also of the view that in exercise of its jurisdiction of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure no interference can be made in either of the two cases. Before parting with these case, this Court feels that these petitions are filed ignoring the principles of Section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The obvious purpose of that section is to prevent an abuse of the process of Court and secure the ends of justice. This Court is of the view that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. is completely a jurisdiction of conscience. Therefore unless the conscience of this courts is shakened by any grave failure of justice, the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C, should not be invoked. But in actual practice this Court finds that this principle is honoured more in its breach than in its observance. This Court therefore deprecates, in no uncertain terms, this practice of invoking, at the drop of a hat, this jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. This position has been made clear by a catena of cases by the Supreme Court, and also recently in the case of Ganesh Narain Hegde v. Bangarappa reported in JT 1995 (4) SC 124. 10. In view of the above discussions, this Court dismisses both these petitions as thoroughly misconceived and frivolous. There will be no order as to costs.