Judgment : 1. The petitioner herein has filed this petition against the order of the learned Sessions Judge directing the issuance of process inter alia contending that it is the Magistrate who is alone vested with the power to take cognizance of the offence and under no circumstance the Sessions Court can usurp this power and order the Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance and issue process. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent questioned the maintainability of the revision petition and tried to justify the order of the learned Sessions Judge directing the Magistrate to take cognizance and to issue process to the petitioner herein. 3. It is not appropriate to direct that the complaint should be restored to file. The proper order is to direct further enquiry and direct the Magistrate to use his discretion once more if he thinks it proper to do so. In an identical situation, this Court in Nanjappa v. Periakkal, AIR 1951 Mad. 772 , while setting aside Sessions Judge, directed charge to be framed against the accused and held :@BT-1B = "all that the learned Sessions Judge has got the right to do is to direct a further enquiry so that the Court which hears the case afresh has to take evidence and come to conclusion as to whether there is enough evidence to frame a charge or not". 4. This Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can always correct the first revisional Court if it comes to its notice that an illegality has been committed by any subordinate Court in exercise of its criminal jurisdiction. In exceptional case to meet the ends of justice, this Court can always correct the illegality committed by the Subordinate Court. Wherever there is miscarriage of justice, the High Court need not dismiss the petition on technical ground. In Madhu Limaya v. State of Maharashtra, 1977 (4) SCC 551 , the Apex Court has held that in a case where the impugned order clearly brings out a situation which is an abuse of the process of the Court, or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice interference of the High Court is absolutely necessary, then nothing contained is Section 397(2), Cr.P.C. can limit or affect the exercise of the inherent power of the High Court. 5. In the view aforestated, the revision is maintainable. 5. In the view aforestated, the revision is maintainable. In viewofthe quashing of the criminal proceedings on the file of the Magistrate, Tambaram, the direction impugned in this petition is of no consequence and the petition is ordered accordingly.