Honble SAXENA, J – This petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been directed against the order dated 12.1.91 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, whereby he partly allowed the revision petition filed by accused persons and set aside the order dated 23.10.90 of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Desuri taking cognizance against five co-accused persons namely Gala, Bhera, Magga, Dheera and Balu u/s 420 IPC but confirmed the order for taking cognizance of the said offence against the accused petitioner Narain. (2) Succinctly stated the relevant facts are that non-petitioner No.2 Udey Ram filed a criminal complaint on 11.7.89 against the petitioner Narayan and his three brothers namely Bhera, Magga, Dheera in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Desuri alleging that on 13.8.84 the aforementioned accused persons entered into an agreement to sell the agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 455/11 measuring 4 bighas situated in the outskirts of Desuri for an amount of Rs. 13,500 and out of that amount Rs. 5,000 were paid to them by his brother Chunnilal, who was his agent. It was also agreed by the said accused persons that if the complainant did not want to purchase the said land then they shall return the advance amount alongwith interest. It was further alleged that the accused persons had informed Chunilal that the said land was situated adjecent to the agricultural land of the complainant bearing Khasra No. 445/10. It was averred in the criminal complaint that since the complainant had some doubts about the said land he declined to purchase the same. Thereupon, Chunilal demanded the advance amount alongwith interest from the accused persons, who despite notice failed to return the said amount. Thereupon, Chunnilal, filed a civil suit in the court of Civil Judge,Bali against the accused persons, who in their written statement admitted to have executed the disputed agreement for sale in respect of the said land for an amount of Rs. 13,500. They also admitted that they had received an amount of Rs. 5,000 as advance. They averred that they were prepared to perform their part of the contract. 13,500. They also admitted that they had received an amount of Rs. 5,000 as advance. They averred that they were prepared to perform their part of the contract. It was also alleged in the criminal complaint that the accused persons despite the notice dated 29.3.89 given by the Advocate of the complainant failed to show the land in question to the complainant, that land bearing Khasra No. 455/11 was not situated near his land bearing Khasra No. 445/10 and that the accused persons, thus by cheating have taken an amount of Rs. 5,000, which they are not prepared to return and thus, have committed the offence punishable under sec. 420 IPC. The learned Magistrate examined complainant Udey Ram under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C. and under Section 420 Cr.P.C. recorded the statements of PW2 Magaram and PW 3 Chunilal and by his order dated 23.10.90 took cognizance against the aforementioned four accused persons and two more persons namely Gala and Babu, who had executed the agreement for sale. (3) Aggrieved by this order, the accused persons filed a revision petition before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali, who by his impugned order held that the amount of Rs. 5,000 was received by accused petitioner Narayan, that he had wrongly informed Udai Ram that the land in question was situated near his agricultural land, offence under Sec. 420 IPC is made out. He therefore, Partly upheld the order of the Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance against accused Petitioner Narayan but set aside rest of the order dated 23.10.90 by which cogni- zance for the said offence was also taken against the other five accused persons. Hence this petition. (4) I have heard Sh.P.N. Mohnani learned counsel for the petitioner, Sh.C.R. Jakhar learned public prosecutor and Sh. J.M. Bhandari, learned counsel for the complainant Uday Ram at length and perused the recod of lower Courts. (5) Sh. Jakhar, the leaned PP and Sh. J.M. Bhandari have raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this petition. They have submitted that since the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision filed by petitioner Narayan, a second revision does not lie under the Cr.P.C. and that this petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed in circumvention of the provision of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. (6) On the other hand Sh. They have submitted that since the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision filed by petitioner Narayan, a second revision does not lie under the Cr.P.C. and that this petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed in circumvention of the provision of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. (6) On the other hand Sh. P.N. Mohnani has streneously canvassed that even an order passed by the Sessions Judge in revision can be challenged before the High Court invoking its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. He has placed reliance on Ganesh Narayan Hegde Vs. Bangarappa (1) and Krishnan and Anr. Vs. Krishnaveni and Anr. (2). In Hegdes case (cited supra) the Apex Court has observed as under :– ``While it is true that availing of the remedy of the revision to the Se- ssions Judge under Section 399 does not bar a person from invoking the power of the High Court under Section 482, it is equally true that the High Court should not act as a second Revisional Court under the garb of exercising inherent powers. While exercising its inherent powers in such a matter it must be conscious of the fact that the lear- ned Sessions Judge has declined to exercise his revisory power in the matter. The High Court should interfere only where it is satisfied that if the complaint is allowed to be proceeded with, it would amount to abuse of process of Court or that the interests of justice otherwise call for quashing of the charges. (7) Thus it is clear that availing of the remedy of the revision to the Sessions Judge under Section 399 Cr.P.C. does not put a blanket ban on a person from invoking inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in appropriate cases but the High Court should not act as second revisional Court under the garb of execising inherent power. It is needless to mention that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can only be invoked to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C. or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. (8) In a recent case Krishnan Vs. It is needless to mention that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can only be invoked to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C. or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. (8) In a recent case Krishnan Vs. Krishnaveni (cited supra) a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court after discussing the law enunciated in Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Maharashtra (3), V.C. Shukla Vs. State (4), Rajan Kumar Manchanda Vs.State of Kerala(5), Simrikhia Vs. Dolley Mukherjee & Chhabi Mukherjee & Anr. (6), Dharmpal & Ors. Vs. Ramshri & Ors (7) and Deepti alias Aarati Rai Vs. Akhil Ray & Ors. (8) has reiterated that though the second revision before the High Court under Sub Section 1 of Section 397 Cr.P.C. is prohibited by sub section 3 thereof, inherent power of the High Court is still available under Section 482 of the Code as it is paramount power of continuous superintendence of the High Court under section 483. The High Court is justified in interfering with the order leading to miscarriage of justice and in setting aside the order of the lower Court to ensure that the justice is done in accordance with the recognised rules of Criminal Juris- prudence and that its sub-ordinate Courts do not exceed the jurisdiction or abuse the powers vested in them under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of the inferior Criminal courts or to prevent miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not tenable and the same is hereby repelled. (9) Shri Mohnani has viarously canvassed that from the averments in the criminal complaint and the eveidence recorded under Section 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. the basic ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC are totally lacking in this case, and that there is no allegation that petitioner Narayan had dishonestly induced the complainant to make payment of Rs. 5,000/-. Another thrust of his argument is that a civil suit has already been filed by Chunnilal against the petitioner and his brothers for the recovery of Rs. 5,000/-. Another thrust of his argument is that a civil suit has already been filed by Chunnilal against the petitioner and his brothers for the recovery of Rs. 5,000/- with interest and that in the plaint, there is no averment that the petitioner had dishonestly or fraudulently induced complainant Uday Ram to purchase the agricultural land in question or that he had falsely assured him that the land in question was situated adjecent to complainants agricultural land. According to him a bare reading of the complaint indicates that the advance amount was paid to all the accused persons and that the land was also alleged to have been agreed to be sold by all the accused persons but the learned Sessions Judge has quashed the order of cognizance against remaining five accused persons and in such circumstance on the same averments and evidence no offence of cheating can be made out even prima facie against the accused petitioner Narain individually.Thus the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice, the same deserves to be quashed. (10) On the other hand Shri J.M. Bhandari has submitted that the petitioner is neither a khatedar of the land in dispute nor the said land is situated adjacent to the land already purchased by complainant Uday Ram.The petitioner, therefore, dis-honestly induced the complainant to purchase the said land and to part with an advance money of Rs. 5,000/- and thus prima facie ingredients of cheating puni- shable u/s 420 IPC are clearly made out. According to him the continuance of civil suit does not bar the institution of riminal proceedings against the petitioner and that the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge is just and proper and legal and the same does not warrant any interference. (11) I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submi- ssions. A careful perusal of the para No. 4 of the criminal complaint manifestly indicates that the complainant Uday Ram had also filed the copies of the plaint and the written statement before the learned Magistrate. Photostat copy of the alleged agreement dated 13.8.84 was also filed by the complainant. In the agreement, it has been specifically mentioned by the petitioner and his brothers that agricultural land bearing khasra No. 455/11 was in their khatedari. Photostat copy of the alleged agreement dated 13.8.84 was also filed by the complainant. In the agreement, it has been specifically mentioned by the petitioner and his brothers that agricultural land bearing khasra No. 455/11 was in their khatedari. It is no where mentioned that the said land is situated adjacent to the agricultural land bearing khasra No. 445/10 alleged to have been purchased earlier by the complainant. In the agreement it is also mentioned that the said purchase of land has been made by Chunni Lal on behalf of Uday Ram (complainant ) and that if the latter declined to purchase the said land, the petitioner and his brothers would return Rs. 5,000/-; the part payment of sale amount with interest. In the plaint dated 20.7.87 filed by Chunni Lal , the brothers and agent of complainant against the petitioner and his three brothers it was not mentioned that the petitioner had assured/ informed that the land in dispute was situated adjacent to the land bearing khasra No. 445/10. It was also not pleaded therein that the petitioner or his brothers had dishonestly or fraudulently induced the complainant or his brother Chunni Lal to enter into the agreement to purchase the said land. On the other hand, in the plaint it was pleaded that after i5 days of the llaeged agreement dated 13.8.84 Uday Ram decli- ned to purchase the said land and demanded the amount of Rs. 5,000/- with inte- rest. In the written statement the petitioner and his brothers admitted to have agreed to sell their Khatedari land bearing Khasra No. 455/11 and to have received Rs. 5,000/- as advance money , but asserted that they had not agreed to return the said amount to plaintiff Chunni Lal. They also pleaded that they were prepared to perform their part of the contract, but there was a breach of contract committed on behalf of Chunni Lal and his brother, who were not entitled to get the said amount with interest. Complainant Uday Ram has not filed any revenue record to show that the land in question was not recorded in the khatedari of petitioner Narain Ram and his brothe s but was recorded in the khatedari of some other person. (12) It appears that on the basis of the said written statement. Complainant Uday Ram has not filed any revenue record to show that the land in question was not recorded in the khatedari of petitioner Narain Ram and his brothe s but was recorded in the khatedari of some other person. (12) It appears that on the basis of the said written statement. complainant Uday Ram on 11.7.89 i.e. after about five years of the alleged agreement for sale has filed the criminal complaint and for the first time alleged that petitioner and his brothers are not the khatedars of the said land and that the said land is not situated adjacent to his land bearing khasra No.445/10. (13) PW-1 Uday Ram was admittedly not present at the time of the execution of the alleged agreement for sale. PW-2 Maga Ram is the attesting witness of the agreement for sale dated 13.8.84. He has stated that he had given Rs. 5,000/- to pe- titioner Narayan at the instance of Chunni Lal. PW-3 Chunni Lal, who is the brother of complainant, has specifically admitted that the alleged land in dispute is situated on the back side of complainant Uday Rams land. He also does not remember the khasra number of the land in dispute. There is no other evidence. Thus from the careful perusal of the everments made in the criminal complaint and the evidence adduced under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. there is not a fringe of evidence to prima facie show that petitioner Narayan had decieved complainant Uday Ram or fraudulently or dis-honestly induced him to part with an amount of Rs. 5,000/- and to deliver the same to the petitioner or had dis-honestly concealed any material fact. (14) Thus the basic ingredients to constitute the offence u/s 420 IPC are conspicuously missing in this case. Moreover, no explanation, whatsoever has been given by the complainant for this incordinate delay of more than five years in filing the criminal complaint. As per contents of the agreement for sale, the amount of Rs. 5,000/- was paid to all the six executants of the alleged agreement to sell inclu- ding the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge, however, set aside the order taking cognizance against five other executants but on a very flimsy ground has confirmed the order of cognizance against the petitioner Narayan on same pleadings and evidence. Even prima facie, no offence u/s 420 IPC is made out against the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge, however, set aside the order taking cognizance against five other executants but on a very flimsy ground has confirmed the order of cognizance against the petitioner Narayan on same pleadings and evidence. Even prima facie, no offence u/s 420 IPC is made out against the petitioner. It is manifestly established that the matter pertaints to a civil dispute namely breach of sale of agreement purported to have been executed by all the six accused persons and for the recovery of the advance amount with interest for which a civil suit has already been filed on 20.7.87 and the same is still pending. (15) The trial Magistrate as also the learned Sessions Judge have conveniently ignored these material facts and circumstances and have arbitrarily and capriciou- sly held that prima facie an offence u/s 420 IPC is made out against the petitioner. To my mind, if the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence u/s 420 IPC is not set aside then it will positively amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, to secure the ends of of justice, it is a fit case, wherein this Court should invoke its inherent power and quash the impugned or- der. (16) In the premise of the above discussion, this petition is allowed and the order dated 23.10.90 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Desuri, taking cognizance u/s 420 IPC against the petitionerNarain as also the order dated 12.7.91 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali confirming the same are here- by set aside and criminal proceedings against him are hereby dropped.