JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition is directed against the revisional order dated 11.9.97 passed by the Special judge, SC/ST Cases, Merta, whereby he upheld the order of the ACJM, Merta, dated 9.4.97 framing the charges against the petitioners. 2. Mr. Mehta contended that there is no material worth the name on record to frame a charge under Section 406 IPC or 420 IPC and the trial court has committed error in framing the charges. According to him , the dispute is purely of civil nature and if the proceedings are allowed to continue there will be unnecessary harassment to the petitioners and it will be the abuse of the process of the court. 3. Mr. Joshi, on the other hand, raising preliminary objection contended that the petitioners have already availed the opportunity of filing revision against the order of framing charge before the Session Judge and hence, this petition is not maintainable because of the - under sub-sec. (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. He relied on the cases of Jagdish Narain Sharma v. State of Rajasthan 1998 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 293 , Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan 1995 Cr.L.J. 2403 , Munni Lal v. State of Rajasthan 1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 21 , Dharam Pal and Others v. Smt. Ramshri & Others 1993 (1) Crimes 304 and Rajan Kumar v. State of Karnataka 1990 Cr.L.R. (SC) 602 . 4. Mr. Mehta in reply to the preliminary objection, contended that even after the decision of the revision by the Sessions Court, the inherent powers of the High Court are available under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Relying on the case of Krishnan and Another v. Krishna Veni and Another 1997 SCC (Cr.) 544 , he submitted that this Court must interfere with the order else there will be misuse of judicial mechanism and it will lead to miscarriage of justice. 5. I have carefully considered the above arguments. In the cases cited by Mr. 5. I have carefully considered the above arguments. In the cases cited by Mr. Joshi, it has been held that the revisional powers cannot be exercised in the garb of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the case of Krishnan (supra), it has been observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that though second revision before the High Court under sub-section (1) of Section 397 is prohibited by sub-section (3) thereof, inherent power of the High Court is still available under Section 482 of the Code and 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 courts below. It has been further observed at para 8 of the report that when the High Court notices that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its juridical process or illegality of sentence or order. At para 6 of the report, it has been observed that Section 483 enjoins upon every High Court to so exercise its continuous superintendence over the courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it as to ensure that there is an expeditious and proper disposal of Cases by such Magistrates. It has been further observed that the power, of the High Court of continuous supervisory jurisdiction is of paramount importance to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed as also regularity of the proceedings of all inferior criminal courts. 6. Thus the legal position on the point is that if there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the Court, the High Court can interfere under Section 482, Cr.P.C. even though the Sessions judge has dismissed the revision of the petitioner. Keeping in view this principle, I now proceed to examine the merits of the case. 7. The prosecution case, stated in the F.I.R. in nut shell, is this. Respondent Ugam Raj has a cement factory. Keeping in view this principle, I now proceed to examine the merits of the case. 7. The prosecution case, stated in the F.I.R. in nut shell, is this. Respondent Ugam Raj has a cement factory. The petitioners approached him and offered that they would like to run the factory in the partnership of Ugam Raj and Allahnoor. They agreed to deposit the outstanding of the RIICO which amounted to Rupees eighty five lacs and they further agreed to pay Rupees twenty six lacs to Ugam Ram for the material in the factory. They agreed that when the factory starts production their share would be 75% and that of Ugam Ram 25%. Believing the petitioners, Ugam Ram gave in writing that they be made directors. The petitioners took away the files and cheque book and made some changes in the installation of the machinery. They however did not turn up thereafter and thus caused wrongful loss to him. The case for the accused petitioners on the other hand is that the complainant himself had invited them to run the factory as he was unable to run the same because of financial crisis but the agreement failed as the RIICO refused to recognise the petitioner as directors. 8. Be that as it may, there is no dispute that there was some oral agreement between the parties that the petitioners would become directors of the factory and shall have 75% share and deposit the outstandings in the RIICC but they have backed out of the contract. The question is whether on these facts a charge of Section 406 or 420 IPC could be framed against the petitioner. 9. There was no written agreement between the parties. It was not disputed at the time of arguments that the RIICO refused to recognise the petitioners as the directors. It is evident that the petitioners backed out of the agreement as they were not recognised as directors. It is not disputed that the petitioners did not receive anything from the complainant. What is said to have been taken by the petitioners are a file of the documents and the cheque book. However, the copy of the charges which have been framed against the petitioners, indicates that this part of the prosecution version has not been accepted by the trial Court and charges have not been framed for taking away the documents file or the cheque book. However, the copy of the charges which have been framed against the petitioners, indicates that this part of the prosecution version has not been accepted by the trial Court and charges have not been framed for taking away the documents file or the cheque book. 10. The charges which have been framed are that on the assurance of the petitioners some of the machines were refitted changing the directions and that has caused wrongful loss to the complainant. The terms indicate that the petitioners had agreed to run the factory on the condition that they were made directors but as they were not recognised as directors by the RIICO. the agreement failed. On these facts, it cannot be said that there was fraudulent or dishonest intention of the petitioners when they entered into the oral agreement, and even refixed machines by changing their direction. It is obviously a case of breach of contract and to allow the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of the process of the court. 11. In the case of Hari Prasad v. Bishun Kumar 1974 SC 301 , the facts were that the complainant had paid some amount to the accused on the basis of the statement of the accused that he would start a transport business and the complainant would be shown as proprietor of the business but when the complainant went to Calcutta, he found that he was not shown as proprietor of the business The accused also failed to return the amount. On these facts, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, took cognizance of the offence under Section 420 IPC. Under the inherent powers, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings and observed that the payment was made on the basis of the contract and mere breach of contract would not given rise to criminal prosecution and that the complainant had a remedy in the civil court The Supreme Court, affirmed the decision of the High Court and held that these facts were not sufficient to fasten criminal liability on the accused for the offence of cheating. The instant case stands on worse footing as it is not alleged that the petitioners had obtained any property by deceiving the complainant. As such, allowing of proceedings in the criminal court would amount to misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure. The petition deserves to be allowed. 12. Consequently, this petition succeeds. The instant case stands on worse footing as it is not alleged that the petitioners had obtained any property by deceiving the complainant. As such, allowing of proceedings in the criminal court would amount to misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure. The petition deserves to be allowed. 12. Consequently, this petition succeeds. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 136/96 are quashed.Petition Allowed-Proceedings Quashed. *******