JUDGMENT : Shri Tripathi appears for the petitioner. Heard on admission. 2. By order dated 19th of April 2001 the Chief Judicial Magistrate Seoni, directed that Bus bearing no. M.P. -09-S-1727 belonging to this petitioner who appears to be holder of the Insurance Policy also, be handed over to this petitioner, on his executing a Supradnama worth Rs. 1 lakh subject to the conditions enumerated in the order. On acceptance of Supradnama of the petitioner a release order was issued by the learned C.J.M. Seoni. Thereafter, on 23rd of May 2001 the Development Officer of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. informed the Court of C.J.M. in writing, that on account the cheque issued by the petitioner for making payment of the premium, been dishonoured, the cover note of insurance, issued in favour of the petitioner, was cancelled and this fact was informed to the petitioner by registered post, who has obtained the Bus on Supradnama by concealing the aforesaid facts. 3. On consideration of aforesaid facts and after serving a show cause notice on the petitioner, the learned C.J.M. recalled the order dated 19th of April 2001, on 9th of June 2001, on the ground that the same is obtained by concealing the aforesaid facts, which are brought to the notice of the Court by the Development Officer of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Then an order was issued by C.J.M. in the name of S.H.O. for affecting the seizure of the Bus. This order dated 9th of June 2001 passed by C.J.M. was unsuccessfully challenged by this petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 82/2001, which stood disallowed and rejected on 17th of August 2001 by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Seoni. 4. Now the main grievance of the petitioner is that the Insurance Co. had no locus-standi to move the Court and if there is any dispute on the fact of dishonour of cheque issued by the petitioner for making payment of the premium, the dispute was that of civil nature and hence the Court of C.J.M. was not required to take cognizance of. 5. The perusal of order dated 17th of August 2001 passed by Second Addl. 5. The perusal of order dated 17th of August 2001 passed by Second Addl. Sessions Judge Seoni, discloses that the aforesaid Bus which is stated to have been belonging to this petitioner, was seized in connection with an accident, which is stated to have occurred on account of negligence on the part of the Driver and Conductor of the Bus and which resulted in the death of 15 passengers. Thus the Bus is found seized in connection with crime no. 60/2001 of P.S. Lakanwada, Dist. Seoni, for offence punishable under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code R/w 34. Then on moving an application under section 451/457 of the Criminal Procedure Code by this petitioner the Court of C.J.M. exercising jurisdiction over the area of accident, was competent to pass an order of Supradnama in respect of this Bus, which is dated 19th of April 2001. 6. It is settled position of law that the Court is possessed of inherent powers and for exercise of these powers the Court is competent to withdraw any order passed earlier to prevent the abuse of process of the Court. It is immaterial on whose information the Court exercises this power. Thus in recalling order dated 19-11-2001 under the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any illegality or perversity, in the orders passed by the C.J.M. on 9-6-2001 or the Revisional Court on 17-1-2001. Since no case of miscarriage of justice is noted. This petition does not merit which is accordingly disallowed and rejected at this stage. C.C. as per the rules.