ORDER 1. This is a petition under Section 482. CrPC, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 2. The brief relevant facts leading to the tiling of the instant petition are thus : Police Chanderi filed a charge sheet in the Court of the concerned Magistrate for the offences under sections 457, 380, and 411, IPC against nine persons, out of whom the petitioners and one Suresh Kumar were shown as absconding The learned Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 28/7/99 took cognizance of the case and ordered for issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest against the petitioners. The petitioners have approached this Court, invoking its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482, CrPC, with the allegation that factually there is absolutely no evidence on record to connect them with the crimes in question, and the only evidence lurking in the charge-sheet against them is contained in a confessional statement u/s 27 of the Indian evidence Act made by one of the co-accused Tahir Ali. On this basis it has been prayed that the proceedings pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate be quashed as against the petitioners. 3. I have heard the learned counsel on both the sides and have carefully gone through the relevant papers available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that in the absence of any legal evidence against the petitioners collected by the police during investigation no cognizance could have been taken against them. From the side of the State reply has been filed and the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate has contended that the co-accused Tahir Ali has given relevant information u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the complicity of the petitioners with the offence u/s 411, IPC. Besides, the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate has also raised a preliminary objection that since charge has not been framed as yet in the case by the trial Court, hence, the criminal proceedings pending in the trial Court could n9t be quashed at this juncture. 5. Taking the preliminary objection raised by the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate first. suffice it to say that there is no bar whatsoever regarding the invoking of inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Taking the preliminary objection raised by the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate first. suffice it to say that there is no bar whatsoever regarding the invoking of inherent jurisdiction of this Court. It is true that inherent power of the Court has to be exercised sparingly and only for securing the ends of justice, but on this premise it cannot be said that merely because the petitioners have a right to raise objection and plead at the time of framing of the charge that there is no sufficient material for framing of any charge against them. they should be debarred from approaching this Court. at an earlier opportunity of time when the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and summoned them to appear in the Court. I am of the view that under the circumstances when there appears absolutely nothing on record against the accused, there would be no justification in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue as, obviously, this approach by itself would tentamount to an abuse of the process of the Court, and certainly under these circumstances the power u/s 482. CrPC can he exercised. My view is fortified by the view taken by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Ashok Chaturvedi and others v. Shitul H. Chanchani and another reported in 1998 Supreme Court cases (Criminal) 1704. Thus. I am afraid, I do not agree with the preliminary objection raised by the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate. 6. So far as the merit of this case is concerned. the State itself has admitted in the reply filed by it that the only evidence against the petitioners is to he found in the statement of co-accused Tahir Ali recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. I am of the view that the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act are appended by way of a proviso to section 26 dealing with the confession of an accused while in police custody. which has no evidentiary value. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act carving out a proviso to Sec. 26 deals with a fact deposed to as discovered in consequence of the information received from a person accused of an offence, in the custody of a Police officer, and only so much of that information is relevant and may he proved which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered. Naturally, the fact discovered on the information of such person shall be relevant and may he proved against that person, obviously because such fact is discovered on the information given by that person. Therefore, apparently, such a discovered fact cannot be used and proved against any other person, meaning thereby that it would not be treated as an evidence against any other person. In the instant case, as it prima-facie appears from the challan papers, the information was given by one of the co-accused Tahir Ali. against the petitioner/accused Papoo, that he had hidden the Jeep No. MPZ-4663 near the house of Papoo, and against the other petitioner/accused Lalloo. that he had kept seven silver coins with him. this information. if at all relevant, can at the most he proved against co-accused Tahir Ali and not against the petitioners. Thus, merely on this basis, I am of the view that the petitioners cannot be implicated with the crimes in question. Admittedly, there is no other evidence connecting them with the crimes in question. 7. Thus, in view of the above discussion it is apparent that there is absolutely no legal evidence connecting the petitioners with the crimes in question and therefore, taking cognizance of the case against the petitioners by the learned trial Magistrate is certainly an abuse of the process of the Court giving rise to the miscarriage of justice. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in Criminal case No. 88/99 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Mungawali. District - Guna, are hereby quashed.