Judgment 1. The two petitioners who figure as F.I.R. named accused of Patliputra P.S. Case No. 170 of 2003 have prayed for quashing of the order dated 16/17.4.2006 passed therein by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, whereby charges under Sections 498A and 406/34 I.P.C. as also Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have been framed against them. 2. Mr. Indu Shekhar Pd. Sinha, the learned Senior Counsel for O.P. No. 2 has raised a preliminary objection in respect of the maintainability of the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C: It has been submitted that it is Well settled by now that it is a revision which will lie against the order framing charge. It has also been submitted that when there is a specific provision for redressal of a grievance resort cannot be taken to the inherent power conferred by virtue of the provision of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and in the instant case a revision not having preferred, this application was not maintainable. 3. There appears sufficient force in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for O.P. No. 2. 4. There is another aspect of the matter. It appears that the petitioners had earlier moved this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 21442 of 2004 for quashing of the entire proceeding of the case and this Court by order dated 24.3.2005 while dismissing that application had observed that the petitioners shall be at liberty to move the Court at the appropriate stage. 5. However, the petitioners without availing of their appropriate opportunity of moving a petition for their discharge instead submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court and after charge had been framed they have rushed to this Court for quashing. This Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot quash the order on that ground alone as the framing of charge can only end in acquittal or conviction and there can be no third alternative or option. 6. It is stated by Mr. Indu Shekhar Pd. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for O.P. No. 2 that recording of evidence has already started and as many as five prosecution witnesses have been examined. 7. Now the stage of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. is long over. Now the Court has only to see if the evidence adduced in the trial is sufficient to secure a conviction or otherwise. 8. 7. Now the stage of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. is long over. Now the Court has only to see if the evidence adduced in the trial is sufficient to secure a conviction or otherwise. 8. Accordingly there is no merit in this application which is dismissed.