JUDGMENT 1. - A very short question has arisen in this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length. Though notice was sent to the Divisional Manager (Railway) Kota, yet none has appeared on behalf of the railways. 3. Gauri Shankar was involved in a case under section 3 of the Railway Property (unlawful possession) Act, 1966. He was convicted by the Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (Railway) camp Gangapur City. On appeal the conviction and sentence were set aside. State filed an appeal No. 514/79 which was decided on 18.2.79 and the order of acquittal was not interfered with. When the learned Magistrate had passed the order of conviction on 17.9.77, he passed the order that seized cinder was railway property and it should be handed over to the railway administration. After the acquittal of the petitioner on 12.7.90 it was ordered that the cinder measuring 73,370 Q. Ft. be handed over to the petitioner. It may be stated that one Shri RN. Handa, Assistant Engineer, Kota had taken possession of the cinder from the R.RF. on behalf of railway before/ after challan was submitted in the court of railway Magistrate. But when notice was given to Shri Handa, he stated that he was retired and the cinder was not in his possession. Thereafter a notice was given to the railway administration for delivering the seized cinder to the applicant. The railway and the Railway Protection Force failed to return the seized goods to the petitioner. Thereafter on 27.8.91 the petitioner initiated proceedings against Divisional Manager Railway, Kota and Commandant, Railway Police, Kota as also against Ramesh Chandra Sharma who has seized the goods from the petitioner. But when the learned Magistrate found that the goods were not delivered to Shri Handa by any order of the court, he passed an order that the petitioner may file a civil suit in the court for taking delivery of the seized goods. This order is under challenge in this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of learned Magistrate suffers from infirmity because it was Shri RN. Handa. who had taken possession of the cinder on behalf of the railways. This order is under challenge in this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of learned Magistrate suffers from infirmity because it was Shri RN. Handa. who had taken possession of the cinder on behalf of the railways. He submitted that it hardly mattered if the court had not passed any order of delivery of cinder to Shri Handa before the final order for disposal of property. He has submitted that under Section 452 Cr.RC. final order about disposal property is passed at the conclusion of the trial and such an order was passed but has not been complied with. Therefore, the learned Magistrate could not have passed second time such an order that the petitioner should go to a civil court and get his right determined there. According to him, from all angles the order of the learned Magistrate dated 17.12.91 is erroneous. He submitted that this Court has inherent powers to make such order as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned PP has tried to support the order of the learned Magistrate. 6. It is evident that when the court had passed the order that the cinder is to be delivered to the petitioner, the second order of the learned Magistrate directing that the petitioner should go to the civil court, is perse illegal. Even if Shri Handa had taken possession of the cinder on behalf of the railways from the RPF authorities, when an order was passed that the cinder is to be delivered to the petitioner after the conclusion of the trial, cinder was to be delivered to the petitioner. There should be no if and but. In stead of the learned Magistrate adopted a new procedure of directing the petitioner to go before a civil court. I find that the order is perverse and should be set aside. The railway has not appeared and has not contested that Shri PN. Handa had not taken delivery of cinder on behalf of railways, therefore, to ask the petitioner to go to civil court is to multiply the proceedings which is never desired by the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the object of Section 482 Cr.RC. is to set right the abuse of the process of court or injustice met to a party. 7. Therefore, the object of Section 482 Cr.RC. is to set right the abuse of the process of court or injustice met to a party. 7. I, therefor, use the powers given under Section 482 Cr.RC. in this matter and allow this petition. I set aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated 17.12.91 and order that the cinder which was taken by Shri PN. Handa on behalf of railway be handed over to the petitioner.> Petition against said order allowed. *******