JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated 16.4.94 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) whereby the trial court took cognizance for offence under Section 406 I.RC. against the petitioner. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned carefully. 3. The trial court on perusal of statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.RC. namely Harbanslal and Madho Singh and other material, came to conclusion that prima facie offence under Section 406 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. By a detailed order, the trial court took cognizance of offence noticed above against the petitioner. The order taking cognizance is revisable. 4. A Division Bench of this Court in Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur v. Dashrath Singh, 1996 Rajasthan Criminal Cases, 592 , held that the order taking cognizance is an intermediary order, but positively not an interlocutory order and that against such order a revision petition is maintainable under Section 397(2) Cr.RC. 5. In State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan & Ors., 1988(4) SCC 655 , the Hon'ble Supreme court held that the jurisdiction u/s. 482 Cr.RC. has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. It has been held that at the initial stage, the Court could not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. 6. In State of Haryana v. Chaudhary Bhahan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to law or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint by the complainant. 7. In S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat & Anr., JT 2001(6) SC 631 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings, in the normal course of events ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage, unless the same amounts to an abuse of the process of law. 8. It is settled law that inherent powers u/s. 482 Cr.RC. should be exercised only when the Court comes to the conclusion that in the event of non-interference, it would result in manifest injustice or abuse of process of Court. 8. It is settled law that inherent powers u/s. 482 Cr.RC. should be exercised only when the Court comes to the conclusion that in the event of non-interference, it would result in manifest injustice or abuse of process of Court. The case in hand does not come within the purview of scope of interference.In this view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******