JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned PP for the State and the learned counsel for the accused respondent. 2. Petitioner has filed this criminal petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bassi, District Jaipur, dated 6.10.2006 whereby application u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. wherein it was requested to proceed against Prem Devi, Anju', Sangeeta, Kuldeep, Sandeep, Mukesh, Rameshwar and Sunil for the offence under sections 336, 427 and 448 IPC, was dismissed. The petitioner was also challenged the order of the learned Sessions judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur dated 20.11.2006 whereby his revision petition against the said order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bassi, was also dismissed. 3. At the very out set, the learned counsel for the accused respondent submitted that the petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. does not lie as the second revision u/s. 397(3). The learned counsel for the accused respondent placed reliance in Dharam Pal & Others v. Smt. Ramshri & Others (Crimes 1-1993(1) Page 304) . In this regard, it may be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down in Krishnan and another v. Krishnaveni and another ( AIR 1997 SC 987 ) that ordinarily, when revision has been barred by section 397(3) of the Code, a person accused/complainant-cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to the High Court under section 397(1) or under inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Code since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of section 397(3) or section 397(2) of the Code. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has further observed that 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, it is but the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensue. Thus the position of law has been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the aforementioned circumstances, the inherent power u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked. 4. While considering the matter in hand, it is revealed that the learned trial court has considered the relevant record on the point and has discussed the matter in view of the statements of Radheyshyam (PW. 4. While considering the matter in hand, it is revealed that the learned trial court has considered the relevant record on the point and has discussed the matter in view of the statements of Radheyshyam (PW. 8), Smt. Sushila Devi (PW. 9) in view of the cross cases pending between the two parties. It has been further observed by the learned trial court that no injury was inflicted to the complainant party and on police investigation, accused persons Ramji Lal, Shanti Devi and Ganesh were found to be involved in the offences but it was not clear that what role was played by rest of the persons alleged to be involved in the incident especially in view of the independent witnesses Choti Lal (PW. 1) and Shrinarayan (PW. 2). In view of this consideration, the application of the petitioner U/s. 319 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. 5. Likewise, the revisional court has also not found that the basis of consideration of the learned trial court was lacking and has dismissed the revision petition. 6. In view of the above concurrent observations of the two courts below, I do not find any infirmity, illegality in the orders under challenge so as to invoke the powers u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. and as such no interference is called for. Therefore, this petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.Petition dismissed.. *******