B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/a-1 and A-2 to quash the charge-sheet in C. C. No. 359 of 2000 on the file of Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The petitioners herein are A-1 and A-2 in C. C. 359/2000. One Chigurupalle Sathyanarayana is A-3 in the said C. C. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case giving rise to filing of this Criminal Petition by the petitioners/accused in brief are : the petitioners established a firm in the name and style of Ms. A. P. Sugars Electricity Generation Plant and Enclave Project I. C. S. Limited at Srikakulam and obtained a temporary registration of the firm with District Industries Centre, Srikakulam under proceedings in Lr. No. 2730/88/c, dated 28-8-98. The 1st petitioner is the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the firm. 2nd petitioner is the husband of petitioner No. 1 and he is working as Junior Assistant in District Court, Vizianagaram. A-3 Chigurupalle Sathyanarayana is a partner of Vidhya High School and Convent, Old Amdalvalsa, Srikakulam. All the petitioners with an evil idea of earning huge amounts by cheating the innocent unemployed youth issued a notification in the name of Swarnajayanthi Employment Rehabilitation Primary Membership. By floating the said scheme, they planned to collect Rs. 12,500/- each from 3000 candidates. They created some proceedings to make the public believe that they are authorised recruiting agency. The District Employment Officer believing the representations of the petitioners entered into correspondence with them from time to time. The petitioners issued notification in Eenadu daily on 21-2-1999 inviting applications from unemployed youth for filing up 3000 vacancies by citing some of the reference of the District Employment office and also the District Industries Centre, Srikakulam. In the notification they have given some phone numbers with which they are in no way concerned. In response to the advertisement given by the petitioners on 29-3-99, thousands of unemployed youth flocked the venue of interview i. e. at Dolphin Hotel, Visakhapatnam. For some reason or the other, the petitioners did not conduct the interviews at Dolphin hotel. The candidates who came to the value to attend the interview became wild and started entering into the hotel premises. Thereupon the hotel authorities telephoned to police who entered the scene and brought the mob under control. For some reason or the other, the petitioners did not conduct the interviews at Dolphin hotel. The candidates who came to the value to attend the interview became wild and started entering into the hotel premises. Thereupon the hotel authorities telephoned to police who entered the scene and brought the mob under control. The Manager of the Dolphin Hotel, Visakhapatnam submitted a report to the SHO, II Town (L and O), P. S. , Visakhapatnam City. L. W. 19 is Rama Murthy, Additional Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town (Lando), P. S. received the report and registered a case in Cr. No. 75/99 under Sections 420 and 511 and 201, IPC. After usual investigation, he laid the charge-sheet in the Court of Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as C. C. 359/2000. The petitioners/accused filed Cri. M. P. No. 7518/2000 under Section 239, Cr. P. C. seeking their discharge for the offences under Sections 420 and 511 and 201, IPC. The learned Magistrate by order dated 3-3-2001 dismissed the application on the ground that there is a prima facie case against the petitioners/accused for the accusation levelled against them. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed in Cri. M. P. No. 7518/2000 in C. C. 359/2000, the petitioners/accused filed Cri. R. P. No. 34/2001 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. On considering the material and on hearing counsel for the petitioners and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge by order dated 13-8-2002 dismissed the Cri. R. P. After dismissal of the Cri. R. P. , the petitioner have filed this Criminal Petition to quash the charge-sheet in C. C. 359/2000 on the file of Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contends that even if the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the charge-sheet are considered to be true, they do not make out any of the offences under Sections 420, 511 or 201, IPC. He further contends that the petitioners are entitled to file the application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. to quash the proceedings in C. C. 359/2000 despite their exhausting remedy under Section 397 of Cr. P. C. He placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Krishna v. Krishnaveni, 1997 Cri LJ 1519 : ( AIR 1997 SC 987 ). P. C. to quash the proceedings in C. C. 359/2000 despite their exhausting remedy under Section 397 of Cr. P. C. He placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Krishna v. Krishnaveni, 1997 Cri LJ 1519 : ( AIR 1997 SC 987 ). It is held in the cited decision that though revision before the High Court under Section 397 (1), Cr. P. C. is prohibited by Sec. 397 (3) of Cr. P. C. thereof, inherent power of High Court is still available under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. of the Court and its paramount power of continuous superintendence of the High Court under Section 483, Cr. P. C. the High Court is justified in interfering with the order leading to miscarriage of justice. It is further held that the revisional power of the High Court merely conserves the power of the High Court to see that justice is done in accordance with the recognized rules of criminal jurisprudence and that its subordinates Courts do not exceed the jurisdiction or abuse the power vested in them under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of the inferior Criminal Courts or to prevent miscarriage of justice. The object of Sec. 483 and the purpose behind conferring the revisional power under S. 397 read with S. 401, upon the High Court is to invest continuous supervisory jurisdiction so as to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularity of the procedure or to met out justice. In addition, the inherent power of the High Court is preserved by S. 482. The power of the High Court, therefore, is very wide. However, High Court must exercise such power sparingly and cautiously when the Sessions Judge has simultaneously exercised revisional power under S. 397 (1 ). However, 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 of miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior Criminal Court in its juridical process or illegality of sentence or order. Under Section 397 (3) of Cr. Under Section 397 (3) of Cr. P. C. if an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by other of them. Ordinarily, when revision has been barred by Sec. 397 (3) of the Code, a person accused/complainant - Cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to the High Court under S. 397 (1) or under inherent powers of the High Court under S. 482 of the Code since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of S. 397 (3) or S. 397 (2) of the Code. However, when the High Court on examination of the record finds that there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the Courts or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction, it is but the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensue. It is, therefore, to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process that the High Court is preserved with inherent power and would be justified, under such circumstances, to exercise the inherent power and in an appropriate case even revisional power under S. 397 (1) read with S. 401 of the Code. It may be exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings. The object of criminal trial is to render public justice, to punish the criminal and to see that the trial is concluded expeditiously before the memory of the witness fades out. ( 4 ) THE question is whether the petitioners have made out a case to invoke the powers of the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P. C. to quash the charge-sheet in C. C. 359/2000. It is not to be forgotten that the petitioners have filed Cr. M. P. No. 7518/2000 under Section 239, Cr. P. C. seeking their discharge and the said application ended in dismissal and they unsuccessfully challenged the order passed in the said petition by filing Cri. R. P. No. 24/2001 under Section 397, Cr. P. C. In order to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr. M. P. No. 7518/2000 under Section 239, Cr. P. C. seeking their discharge and the said application ended in dismissal and they unsuccessfully challenged the order passed in the said petition by filing Cri. R. P. No. 24/2001 under Section 397, Cr. P. C. In order to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. in the circumstances of the case, the petitioners have to make out a case of a grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the Court. ( 5 ) THE case against the petitioners is that they issued a notification in Eenadu on 21-2-99 inviting the applications from the unemployed youth with an intention to collect Rs. 12,000/- each from 3000 candidates. They also manipulated certain correspondence with the District Employment Office, Srikakulam and also District Industries Centre, Srikaklam so as to make the people believe that the are authorized recruiting agency. ( 6 ) IT is contended by counsel for the petitioners that even if the petitioners issued such a notification, it does not make out any offence. What he means to say is that mere issuance of notification amounts to only preparation and therefore, it does not make the petitioners liable for punishment under Sections 420, 511 and 201, IPC. ( 7 ) EVERY crime has got four stages : (1) The intention to commit; (2) the preparation; (3) the attempt and; (4) the crime. If the attempt fails, the crime is not complete but the attempt is punishable because it creates alarm which of itself is an injury and the moral guilt of the offender is the same as if he had succeeded. An attempt to commit a crime must be distinguished from the intention or the preparation to commit it. Preparation consists in devising or arranging the means or measures necessary for the commission of the offence, which differs widely from attempt, which is the direct movement towards the commission after the preparation has been made. Attempt begins when preparation ends. Attempt excludes the possibility of change in the intention of the accused. The test for determining whether the act of the petitioners constitute attempt or preparation is whether the overt acts already done or such if the offender changes his mind and does not proceed further in its progress, the acts already done would be completely harmless. Attempt excludes the possibility of change in the intention of the accused. The test for determining whether the act of the petitioners constitute attempt or preparation is whether the overt acts already done or such if the offender changes his mind and does not proceed further in its progress, the acts already done would be completely harmless. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1970 SC 713 : (1970 Cri LJ 750) that as a matter of law a preparation for committing an offence is different from attempt to commit it. The preparation consists in devising or arranging the means or measures necessary for the commission of the offence. On the other hand, an attempt to commit the offence is a direct movement towards the commission after preparations are made. ( 8 ) THE case against the petitioners is that they intended to collect Rs. 12,500/- from 3000 candidates by luring the unemployed youth on the pretext of providing employment to them. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined L. W. 10 Balabadruni Anand, L. W. 11 Dr. Boggam Srinivasapatnaik, L. W. 12 Pirdi Ramakrishna, L. W. 13 Kanakadhandi Viswapathi, L. W. 14 V. Sreenivasan, L. W. 15 Sripadha Kasipathi, L. W. 16 U. Narayana Murthy, L. W. 17 M. Venkateswara Rao, L. W. 18 A. V. Sathyanarayana and recorded their statements. It is explicit from their statements that the petitioners manipulated certain correspondence with the District Industries Department and District Employment Office to make the people believe that they are the authorized recruiting agency. They issued notification-inviting applications from the unemployed youth. They have given the telephone numbers with which they are in no way concerned. On sensing that their plan is not going to work out, 2nd petitioner stealthily took away the original documents from L. W. 15 Sripadha Kasipathi, Senior Inspector, Industrial Co-operative Society, DIC, Srikakulam. The material brought on record clearly establishes that the petitioners attempted to cheat the public. The learned Magistrate and the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge appreciated the material brought on record in right perspective and held that the petitioners are not entitled for the discharge under Section 239, Cr. P. C. for the acquisition levelled against them. The material brought on record clearly establishes that the petitioners attempted to cheat the public. The learned Magistrate and the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge appreciated the material brought on record in right perspective and held that the petitioners are not entitled for the discharge under Section 239, Cr. P. C. for the acquisition levelled against them. On through consideration of the material placed on record, I do not see any valid reason to quash the proceedings in C. C. 359/2000 on the file of Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam by invoking the powers under Section 482, Cr. P. C. ( 9 ) IN the result, this Criminal Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.