JUDGMENT 1. :- This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 1.9.1998 whereby the learned Add]. Sessions judge dismissed revision application of the petitioners against Magistrate's order dated 5.11.97 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 498A and 406 Indian Penal Code against them and two others. 2. Respondent Smt. Rekha Wadhwani was married to Dr. Mohan Lal co-accused on 8.5.94. Soon after the marriage differences arose between them, allegedly for demand for more dowry by the husband and his relatives as contended by the said Respondent or due to highly volatile temperament of the respondent, as contended by the petitioners. Dr. Mohan Lal filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 17.10.95 against the respondent for dissolution of marriage. The wife answered the petition by filing FIR No. 108/95 on 27.11.95 against her husband and his relatives, namely Sh. Veerumal, the father, Smt. Rami (Petitioner No.2), the mother, Bansi Lal (Petitioner No.1), the brother, and Smt. Janki (Petitioner No.3), the sister. After investigation of the case the police submitted their report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on 6.1.96 against husband only. 3. On a notice having been given by the learned Magistrate to the wife (Smt. Rekha respondent) before accepting the negative report submitted in favour of the petitioners and Sh. Veerumal (father), the respondent-wife put in appearance through her counsel on 8.3.96 and prayed for time to file a protest petition and the case was adjourned to 6.4.96. The case was adjourned on 6.4.96 and thereafter on 4.5.96 to enable the wife to file the protest petition. On 17.5.96 the parties informed the Magistrate that they wanted to enter into a compromise with regard to their dispute. The case was, therefore, adjourned to 21.8.96 and 25.10.96 for the said purpose. On the next date of hearing i.e. 20.12.96 the wife respondent filed an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. requesting the learned Magistrate to summon the present petitioners and Sh. Veerumal (father) as additional accused in the case. The learned Magistrate heard the parties on such application and dismissed the same vide order dated 22.2.97. 4. It may be pointed out here that in the divorce petition filed by the husband, in consequence of the efforts made by the learned Family Judge the parties had come to a compromise and, therefore, the divorce petition had already been dismissed on 30.1.97. 5. 4. It may be pointed out here that in the divorce petition filed by the husband, in consequence of the efforts made by the learned Family Judge the parties had come to a compromise and, therefore, the divorce petition had already been dismissed on 30.1.97. 5. Any way, after the dismissal of wife's application under section 319 Cr.P.C. on 22.2.97 the criminal case was adjourned on 26.4.97 and 10.6.97 for enabling the parties to file compromise. However, on 26.7.97 the wife respondent filed yet another application under section 319 Cr.P.C. making the same request as was made by her in her earlier application. But on the next date of hearing when the Magistrate required the parties to address him on The said application, the said application was not pressed. Instead, another application under section 190 Cr.P.C. was filed for the same relief. The learned Magistrate heard the parties on such application and vide his order dated 5.11.97 accepted the same and summoned the present petitioners and Sh. Veerumal, as accused in the case for offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. 6. The petitioners and Sh. Veerumal challenged the order of the learned Magistrate before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by filing revision application under Section 397/399 Cr.P.C. (Cr. Rev. Application No. 22/98). The learned Add]. Sessions Judge, vide his impugned order, partly accepted the application in respect of Sh. Veerumal (father) but dismissed the same in so far that related to the present petitioners. 7. I heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the lower court. Both the parties appeared in person also before me and in order to satisfy myself as to whether any injustice has been caused to the petitioners by the impugned order or was likely to be caused to the wife respondent in case the impugned order was vacated by this court, I heard them also. 8. At the very outset a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents to the effect that since the learned Addl. 8. At the very outset a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents to the effect that since the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has already revised the order of the learned Magistrate in exercise of his powers tinder Section 397/399 Cr.P.C. this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., which in fact seeks the revision of the same order of the learned Magistrate, was barred by Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. In this behalf reference was made to the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Krishnan V. Krishnaveni ( AIR 1997 SC 987 ) ; Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police (1985 Cr.L.J. 1521) , State of Bihar Vs. Sh. Rajendra Agarwal (1996(1) Crimes SC 21) ; Allahabad High Court decision in Bhagwan Dass & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Anr. (1996(1) Crimes 244 (HC) ; Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in Giani Harjeet Singh Vs. Paramjit Kaur ( 1996(2) Crimes 112 ) and Rajasthan High Court decisions in Smt. Bhauti Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. (1998(2) WLC 175) ; Bhoj Raj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (1994 RCC(Jan) 119) ; Jagdish Vs. State of Rajasthan (1995 RCC (Mar) 165) . 9. It is well settled that the inherent powers of this court as mentioned in section 482 Cr.P.C. are exceptional powers which are required to be exercised sparingly and in rarest of rare cases wherein abuse of the process of court or gross injustice to a party or perpetuation of injustice to a party by continuance of an order, is noticed by this court. Such powers are, in one sense, wide enough knowing no barriers in the cause of doing justice to a party or to prevent the abuse of the process of law/court and, at the same time, quite exceptional and restrigted in the sense that such powers are to be exercised with great care and caution either to prevent the abuse of the process of court or to do justice between the parties. Whereas in exercise of the revisional powers tinder section 397 Cr.P.C. the main concern of the court is to examine the legality and validity of an order passed by an inferior court, in the exercise of the inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. this court is concerned in preventing the abuse of the process of the court or to protect a party from being treated unjustly by the process of the court and to do justice to him and thus to save failure or miscarriage of justice in the given case. This seems to me to be the substance of the principles enunciated in the above mentioned cases. 10. The question whether in a given case there has been gross failure of justice and thus injustice has occasioned to the aggrieved party or that the case shows abuse of the process of the court, may best be answered with reference to the facts of that case. In the instant case the respondent had no doubt lodged her complaint for offences under Sections 498A and 406 Indian Penal Code against as many as five persons including the present petitioners and her husband and father-in-law but after thorough investigation the police had found the commission of such offences against her by her husband only. The SHO had accordingly submitted a composite report in the case. A positive report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted against Dr. Mohan Lal, the husband and a negative report in respect of the four other persons including the present petitioners. Dr. Mohan Lal was arrested during the investigation and was subsequently released on bail. The police report was filed, as stated earlier, on 6.1.1996. The Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 498A and 406 Indian Penal Code on the police report so submitted and Dr. Mohan Lal stood already summoned as accused in the case and he had been continuously putting in appearance therein, before and after the submission of the police report. Had the Magistrate not taken cognizance of an offence in the case and summoned Dr. Mohan Lal, the husband as an accused thereunder, he would have not required him to attend the hearings of the case. Had the Magistrate not taken cognizance of an offence in the case and summoned Dr. Mohan Lal, the husband as an accused thereunder, he would have not required him to attend the hearings of the case. After the receipt of the police report the case was adjourned for as many as six times, for three times to enable the complainant wife to file the protest petition and for three times to enable the parties to file the compromise. Even after having received the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. from the wife-complainant and dismissing the same the case was adjourned for enabling them to file the compromise. Applications under section 319 Cr.P.C. were received and entertained twice and thereafter the same were dismissed. The proceedings so taken by the learned Magistrate in the case clearly show that it was after having taken cognizance of certain offences in the case and having summoned Dr. Mohan Lal, the husband as an accused thereunder, the Magistrate had proceeded in that way and twice he had considered complainant's applications under section 319 Cr.P.C. in order to summon additional accused in the case. Once the Magistrate had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 498A and 406 Indian Penal Code in the case and summoned Dr. Mohan Lal as an accused thereunder he could not have thereafter again proceeded under section 190 Cr.P.C. in order to summon some other person or persons as additional accused in the case. In the facts and under the circumstances of the case, if the learned Magistrate felt satisfied that some other person or persons are also required to he summoned as additional accused in the case, he could have acted under section 319 Cr.P.C. and for that purpose he was required to have acted on some 'evidence' as defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act. The police report and the material submitted therewith did not make such 'evidence' for the purposes of action under section 319 Cr.P.C. and for action under section 190 Cr.P.C. it was too late a stage as the Magistrate had already taken cognizance of offences under Sections 498A and 406 Indian Penal Code in the case and summoned Dr. Mohan Lal, husband, as accused thereunder. Mohan Lal, husband, as accused thereunder. After having proceeded under Section 311) Cr.P.C. and finding that the said provision was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Magistrate could have not reverted back and make an order under Section 190 in order to summon such persons as additional accused in the case against whom the police had submitted a Negative Report. In the nature of the police report, submitted under section 173 Cr.P.C., which was partly positive and partly negative, the learned Magistrate could have summoned other persons also as accused in the case, at the very time when he took cognizance of the offence tinder Section 190 and summoned the person who was challaned by the police as an accused thereunder. But if he did not act in that way at that time and had taken cognizance of an offence and summoned the person only, who was challaned by the police as accused in the case, the course open to him thereafter was to act tinder section 319 Cr.P.C. Twice he was requested to proceed under the provision but he did not act as by that time the conditions applicable to attract the provisions of section 319 Cr.P.C. were non-existent. Thereafter his action under section 190 Cr.P.C. was bad in law. 11. Since the present petitioners were found, on investigation of the case by the police, not having any complicity and involvement in the commission of any cognizable offence, if at all committed against the respondent, and the Magistrate had himself twice rejected the applications under section 319 Cr.P.C. moved against them by the respondent and there had been talks of compromise between the husband and the wife as a consequence of which the divorce petition of the husband had been dismissed by the Family Judge, summoning of the petitioners as accused in the case by mode of section 190 Cr.P.C. amounted to the abuse of the process of the court of the learned Magistrate and caused great injustice to the petitioners. In that sense of the matter the present petition is not in the nature of a second revision against the order of the Magistrate so as to attract the prohibitory provision contained in Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. The proceedings taken by the learned Magistrate in summoning the petitioners as accused in the case amounted to abuse of the process of his court and, therefore, this case squarely falls within the exceptional jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 r.w. section 483 Cr.P.C. 12. Apart from the above legal position, neither in the police report under section 173 Cr.P.C. nor in the material submitted therewith there was prima facie evidence showing complicity of the petitioners in the commission of any offence, by any of them, against the respondent-wife. On the contrary there was sufficient evidence in the police report and the material submitted therewith that Dr. Mohan Lal, the husband, was in the employment of the State Government as a Doctor and as such had remained posted at different places including Bharatpur. Respondent wife lived with him. The petitioners themselves were living at Jaipur and not with the couple. The evidence collected by the police on these lines in the course of investigation did not prima facie show any complicity of any of the petitioners in the commission of any of the offences against the respondent-wife. The learned Magistrate had collected no evidence by the mode of the provisions of Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. to controvert the above evidence. On facts of the case also there was no justification in making an order under section 190 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate for summoning the petitioners as accused in the case.In the result, the impugned orders as made by the learned Magistrate and the learned Addl. Sessions judge summoning the present petitioners as accused of offences under Sections 498A and 406 Indian Penal Code in this case are hereby set aside and the proceedings against the present petitioners cancelled and dropped. The petition stands allowed.Petition Allowed. *******