This criminal revision is so preferred by the sole petitioner Shri Motilal Upadhyaya against the judgment and order dated 30.9.94 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon, in CM Case No.87 (N) of 1994 affirming the order of the Executive Magistrate dated 20.6.94 passed in MR Case No.32 of 1994 a proceeding under section 145 CrPC declaring the possession of Dimbeswar Bora and others figuring here opposite party over the land in proceeding. 2. Mr. KK Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. BK Goswami, learned counsel for the opposite party are heard at length. 3. On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel submits that though following order so passed in proceeding under section 145 CrPC against the present petitioner by the Executive Magistrate on 20.6.94, criminal revision was so preferred seeking redressal before the learned Sessions Judge but the same was dismissed arbitrarily on 30.9.94 on critic grounds and hence this revision petition under section 482 CrPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution for preventing the abuse of the process of the Court and for securing the ends of justice by also exercising the general power of superintendence. The points so taken as good grounds for setting aside the order dated 30.9.94 is that learned Executive Magistrate would not have personally made local enquiry by visiting the plot rather the same would have been made if felt necessary as per the provisions of section 148 CrPC and further more without preparing the memorandum of the inspection note, it is further pointed out that me learned Executive Magistrate has erred to a great extent causing prejudice to the petitioner and it can well be said that his deciding factum of possession over the land in proceeding in favour of the opposite party basing the same also on local enquiry so made which was not so made as per the provisions of law, hence has caused abuse of-the process of the Court which requires interference by exercising inherent powers under section 482 CrPC. Mr. Mr. Mahanta further submits that knowing it fully well that normally the same party is not expected to file second criminal revision which is a bar under section 397 (3) and 399 (3) of the CrPC but where there is glaring abuse of the process of the Court, the persons aggrieved has all the rights as to invokes, the power under section 482 of the CrPC and hence this petition. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the petitioner referred some of the reported cases in (1983) 1 GLR 139, 1985 Criminal Law Journal 771 (Sukhailal and others vs. Saligram Dubey, Tahasildar of Tisco), AIR 1985 SC 2 1664 (Keisam Kumar Singh & another vs. State of Manipur), AIR 1980 SC 1 258 (Raj Kapoor & others vs. State (Delhi Administration) & others). 4. Heard Mr. BK Goswami, learned counsel for the opposite party. First of all he raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of this criminal revision petition, which is preferred by the same party for the second time which is a bar under the explicit provisions of section 397 (3) and 399 (3) of the CrPC. In support of this contention Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent has referred to a reported case, AIR 1993 SC 1361 (Dharampal & others, vs. Smti Ramshri & others). By particularly referring to its concluding portion of para 4, it is pointed out that Apex Court has clearly held inherent powers under section 482 of the CrPC cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are explicit barred by the Code particularly under section 397 (3) of the CrPC. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent has further referred to another reported case i.e. (1995) 5 SCC 751 (Deepti Alias Arati Rai vs. Akhil Rai & others). In this background it is pointed out that second revision application after the dismissal of the first one by the learned Sessions Judge is not maintainable and that inherent power under section 482 CrPC can not be utilised. Another reported case banked upon on behalf of the opposite party is (1995) 4 SCC 41 (Ganesh Narayan Hegde vs. S. Bangarappa & others), Mr. Goswami, learned counsel submits that Apex Court in this case has hold that High Court should not entertain and sit as the second revisional Court when such petition is filed for the second time. Another reported case banked upon on behalf of the opposite party is (1995) 4 SCC 41 (Ganesh Narayan Hegde vs. S. Bangarappa & others), Mr. Goswami, learned counsel submits that Apex Court in this case has hold that High Court should not entertain and sit as the second revisional Court when such petition is filed for the second time. And the inherent powers under section 482 of the CrPC is to be exercised in the rarest of rare cases without in any way entering into the merits of the case on pronouncing upon the truth and correctness of the complaint or defence. As regards the points so raised on behalf of the petitioner that in the instant case there is abuse of the process of Court which has to be prevented or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge requires interference on these points, Mr Goswami, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that no situation as such is meted out for such interference even taking the worst view this criminal revision petition is entertained. In this connection it is pointed out that provisions of section 310 of the CrPC in no way takes away the right of the Executive Magistrate as to hold local enquiry/local inspection and as regards the memorandum of inspection note not prepared that can simply be taken as an irregularity on no account which vitiating the whole proceeding. Mr Goswami, learned counsel has also taken me to the impugned order so passed by the learned Sessions Judge in the criminal revision and submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon as revisional Court has specifically indicating that the local inspection so made was not only on the ground for the Executive Magistrate as to come to the findings with regard to the factum of possession in favour of the opposite party and that being the position there was nothing wrong in the final order so passed under section 145 of the CrPC. As regards the Executive Magistrate, making the local enquiry personally and coming in the category of witness as argued on behalf of the petitioner, by controverting the said argument Mr. As regards the Executive Magistrate, making the local enquiry personally and coming in the category of witness as argued on behalf of the petitioner, by controverting the said argument Mr. Goswami, learned counsel fof the respondent has read section 6 (iv), section 20 (1) and section 20 (4) of the CrPC and submits that the Executive Magistrate in seisin of the proceeding for his personal satisfaction as to decide the factum of possession has the right as to, personally hold enquiry which also supports with the provisions of section 310 of the CrPC. It is in no way a bar to the provision of section 148 CrPC and once in any case the matter is being transferred to file of the Executive Magistrate by the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the transferee Court has got all such power as to exercise and that way too on no account it can be said that the Executive Magistrates impugned order which has been affirmed by the revisional Court of Sessions Judge, Nagaon requires any interference because there is no abuse of the process of the Court as claimed by the petitioner. 5. After hearing both the sides lawyer, also after going through the reported cases cited on their behalf I find that provisions under section 145 CrPC is a quasi judicial proceeding and factum of possession is decided by the Executive Magistrate over the land in proceeding for which there is bonafide land dispute likely to cause a breach of peace expeditiously declaring the possession of one party or the other until final decision coming from in due course of law. While deciding the actual possession local enquiry if so needed can be done for his satisfaction as to decide who has his feet over the land in proceeding but as per provisions so contained under section 145 CrPC and the power so given to the Executive Magistrate as to receive all such evidence that also includes a local enquiry or inspection if so required which alternatively may be made by the subordinate Magistrate to be deputed for the same. But the Executive Magistrate has to decide not on the statement of witnesses if so examined at the time of local inspection but on the statement of a witness examined in Court. 6. But the Executive Magistrate has to decide not on the statement of witnesses if so examined at the time of local inspection but on the statement of a witness examined in Court. 6. So far as the present case is concerned, admittedly this criminal revision is preferred by the same party for the second time and the High Court can not sit as a second revisional Court to interfere with the matter. However, the provisions of section 482 CrPC sparingly can be invoked in case of the glaring abuse of the process of the Court but in the instant case in the background of the facts detailed above, I also do not find it to be a fit case in which there is glaring abuse of process of the Court because the factum of possession being decided taking into consideration other evidence both orally and documentary so coming in course of the proceeding as indicated by the learned Sessions Judge while deciding the revision petition before him. 7. Taking that view I find no merit in this criminal revision petition on both counts firstly because of this revision petition being preferred by the same party for the second time and also not finding glaring abuse of the process of the Court for entertaining this application and exercising inherent power so conferred under section 482 of the CrPC. The same is hereby dismissed.