O. P. GARG, J. Heard Sri S. P. S. Raghav, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. 2. The applicants have been summoned on the complaint of opposite party No. 2 in Crime case No. 29 of 1995 under Section 420/384/506/465/467/467/468/471/166/167/120-B and 218 I. P. C. Police Station Hathras Gate, district Aligarh, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh. The applicants filed an objection/representation against the summoning order. This objection too has been dismissed. The applicants thereafter filed a revision application before the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh. The revision was ultimately decided by IIIrd Sessions Judge, Aligarh by order, dated 7-4-1997. The revision application was dismissed. 3. In this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. It is prayed that the complaint be quashed as it does not disclose any offence against the applicants. It was urged that the dispute raised between the parties is of civil nature. 4. After having perused the summoning order and the order passed on the application for recalling the summoning order, as well as order passed by revisional court, I find that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the applicants for the offences for which they have been summoned. 5. The learned A. G. A pointed out that since the applicants have availed of the opportunity of filing revision application and have failed, the present application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is not, at all, maintainable. Learned Counsel for the applicant pointed out that there is no absolute bar in tiling application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. in spite of the fact that a revision application filed by the applicants has been dismissed. In support of this contention, he placed reliance in a Full Bench decision of this Court in H. K. Rawal v. Nidhi Prakash 1989 U. P. R 255 : 1989 JIC 540 (All) and Judgment Today Krishnan v. Krishna Vani 1997 (1) S. C. 657:1997 JIC 406 (SC ). 6. I have perused both the aforesaid rulings and find that ordinarily when a revision is barred by Section 397 (3) of the Code, a person-accused cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to High Court under Section 397 (1) or under inherent powers of this court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of Section 397 (3) or 397 (2) of the Code. P. C. since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of Section 397 (3) or 397 (2) of the Code. In very exceptional and sparing circumstances, the inherent powers can be exercised to prevent the failure or miscarriage of justice. 7. There is a plathora of rulings, namely, R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 266 ; Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 ; V. C. Shukla v. State, AIR 1980 SC 962 ; Municipal Corpon. of Delhi v. Ram Krishna Rohtgi, AIR 1983 SC 67 ; Rajan Kumar Manchanda v. State 1980 ACC 54 (SC), Simirikhia v. Dolley Mukheriee Chi Mukherjee, (1990) 2 SCC 437 : 1990 JIC 803 (SC) ; Dharam Pal v. Smt. Ramshri AIR 1993 SC 1361 : 1993 JIC 466 (SC); Ganesh Naram Hagcle v. S. Bangarap-pa, 1995 AIR (SCW) 2364 : 1996 JIC 491 (SC); and Deepti alias Arti Rani v. Akhil Rai 1995 Cri LJ (SC) 695 :1996 JIC 81 (SC), the gammut of which is that once revisional power has been exercised on the application of the accused- applicants, recourse to second revision by exercising power under Section 482, Cr. P. C. cannot be taken. In H. K. Rawals case (supra) the Full Bench has observed as follows: ". . . . . . . . that where an application under Section 397, Cr. P. C. filed by any party in the Court of Sessions is decided against him it is open to that party to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P. C. only if the order of the Sessions Judges has resulted in the above of the process of the court and/or calls for interference to secure the ends of justice as the bar under Sections 397 (3) and 399 (3), Cr. P. C. is not applicable to the exercise of the inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P. C. in such a case. If on the other hand the order of the Sessions Judge has determined the dispute between the parties as indicated in our judgment, it cannot be interfered with by the High Court in revision at the instance of the same party or suo moto or in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. If on the other hand the order of the Sessions Judge has determined the dispute between the parties as indicated in our judgment, it cannot be interfered with by the High Court in revision at the instance of the same party or suo moto or in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P. C. in view of the bar under Sections 397 (3) and 399 (3), Cr. P. C. " 8. On scrutiny of facts of the present case, I find that there are no exceptional or compelling circumstances to invoke inherent powers of this Court, particularly when the applicants have availed of the remedy of revision before the Sessions Judge. 9. No interference is warranted in the matter, and the application is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed. .