JUDGMENT 1. - Sewak Ram filed a complaint in the court of ACJM, Beawar for offence under Section 406 and 420 IPC alleging that non-petitioner No. 2 and 3 were the office bearers of Lions Club, Ajmer. Sewak Ram was a resident of Beawar and used to relay stage programmes. These three persons entered into an agreement on 6.3.88 at Beawar under which it was agreed that Sewak Ram would pay Rs.17,000/- as a goodwill for using the banner of Lions Club in order to stage the music programme of Anup Jalota and entire sale proceed of the show would be received by him. It was further alleged that a sum of Rs.1000/- was paid to non-petitioner No. 2 in 11.3.88 and Rs.1000/- to non-petitioner No. 3 on 14.3.88. Balance of Rs. 15,000/- was paid on 7.4.88 to the non-petitioners No. 2 and 3. They had taken the ticket books for selling to the various members of the club and to other persons and were required to pay the collections to Sewak Ram. But they did not account for the sale-proceeds of the tickets and fraudulently and dishonestly misappropriated the collection to their own use add thereby cheated Sewak Ram. Learned Magistrate recorded the statement of Sewak Ram on 29.6.88 and then sent the complaint to the police for investigation. Vide his impugned order he held that he had no jurisdiction to take cognizance. The petitioner filed a revision before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Beawar who dismissed the same. Now Sewak Ram has come under Section 482 Cr.RC. to this Court. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 as well as learned PR 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited N.C. Sippi & Anr. v. Manjeet Singh and another, WLN (UC) 1974 page 152 and submitted that in a similar case the High Court held that the offence under section 420 IPC could have been tried either at the place where the fraudulent misrepresentation or deception took place or where as consequence thereof the complainant was induced to deliver the property. v. Manjeet Singh and another, WLN (UC) 1974 page 152 and submitted that in a similar case the High Court held that the offence under section 420 IPC could have been tried either at the place where the fraudulent misrepresentation or deception took place or where as consequence thereof the complainant was induced to deliver the property. As such, even if the misrepresentation or deception night have taken place at Bombay, since the complainant was induced to deliver a substantial part of the money against the delivery of publicity materials and two prints at Jaipur, the accused could have been tried either at Bombay or at Jaipur. He has, therefore, submitted that the order of both the courts below are erroneous. He has also submitted that in case learned courts were of the view that the Magistrate at Beawar had no jurisdiction, the complaint should have been returned. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 citing Deepti @ Arati Rai v. Akhil Rai & Ors., (1995) 5 SCC, 751 submitted that the petition is barred by Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. as the revision was dismissed by the learned Sessions judge and the inherent power cannot be utilised for exercising powers expressly barred by the Code. He also submitted that the document which was executed does not mention anything about the payment of money which may be collected by sale of the tickets to the petitioner. It simply mentions that Sewak Ram would pay Rs. 17,000/- in order to use the banner of the Lions Club, Ajmer in order to organise the Anup Jalota show on 9th or 10th April, 1988. It rather mentions that the petitioner will himself sell the tickets and will bear all the expenses of the show and will also be responsible for law and order situation. The document mentions that Rs.1000/'- was paid on 11.3.88 and Rs.1000/- on 14.3.88 as well as Rs. 15,000/- on 7.4.88. These are unilateral entries by Sewak Ram on the document. 5. The first question is whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is maintainable under section 482 Cr.RC. or not? In the citation relied by the learned counsel for the respondent, it was observed by the Apex Court that inherent powers cannot be utilised for exercising powers expressly barred by the Code. 5. The first question is whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is maintainable under section 482 Cr.RC. or not? In the citation relied by the learned counsel for the respondent, it was observed by the Apex Court that inherent powers cannot be utilised for exercising powers expressly barred by the Code. It is correct position of law, but in a recent case reported in JT 1997(1) SC 657, Krishnan & Anr. v. Krishnanani & Anr. , the three Hon'ble Judges observed that the object of Section 397(3) is to put a bar on simultaneous revisional applications to the High Court and Sessions Court so as to prevent unnecessary delay and multiplicity of the proceedings. However, the High Court has suo-moto powers under section 401 & 483 Cr.PC. to have supervisory jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and to meet the ends of justice. It was further observed that the inherent powers of the High Court is still available under section 482 Cr.PC. even though revision petition was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge in order to meet the ends of justice. 6. I have gone through the whole record of this case. The agreement does not mention that the tickets will be sold by the non-petitioners and they will account for the money to the petitioner. Therefore, the allegation that the non-petitioners were responsible for selling the tickets and to account for is not correct. The document is said to have been executed at Beawar but no show was organised there. There is no evidence that the ticket books were supplied to the non-petitioners at Beawar or they committed any fraud or misappropriation at Beawar. The question of misappropriation or of fraud did not arise because the document itself does not mention that the tickets would be sold by the non-petitioners rather it mentions that it was Sewak Ram who would be responsible for selling the tickets and to organise the function. The agreement was simply to use the banner of Lions Club of Ajmer. 7. In view of above discussion, I am of the view that it is not a case in which the inherent powers of this Court should be exercised to set aside the orders of the learned lower courts. 8. Consequently, the petition is hereby dismissed. The agreement was simply to use the banner of Lions Club of Ajmer. 7. In view of above discussion, I am of the view that it is not a case in which the inherent powers of this Court should be exercised to set aside the orders of the learned lower courts. 8. Consequently, the petition is hereby dismissed. However, if the petitioner so likes, he may take his complaint back after submitting a copy to the learned Magistrate.> . *******