Judgment : 1. This petition is filed by the accused Nos.3 to 5 under Section 482 Cr.P.C questioning order dated 25.11.2005 passed by the X Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court., Guntur at Narsaraopet in Criminal Revision Petition No.149/2004 by which the lower Court allowed the revision petition setting aside order dated 12.08.2004 passed by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class in C.F.R. No.651/1999 and remitting the matter to the lower Court for disposal after making further enquiry as to whether contents of the complaint and evidence of witnesses are sufficient to take the complaint on file. 2. Subject matter of this petition is pre-cognizance proceedings in the lower Court. The 2nd respondent filed private complaint before the Magistrate Court at Narsaraopet against A-1 to A-5 for offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. Even though status of the parties are not much relevant for purpose of decision in this case, since their status is set out in the private complaint, I propose to mention the same herein. The complainant is an Advocate at Narsaraopet. The 1st petitioner/A-3 is a doctor and member of legislative assembly representing Narsaraopet assembly constituency and he was then holding a post of cabinet rank minister in the Government of Andhra Pradesh. A-5 is viyyanka of A-3. A-4 is stated to be close friend of A-3. It is alleged that A-2 to A-5 floated A-1 firm by name Nagarjuna Real Estates, Narsaraopet and issued brouchers, pamphlets and also publications representing that Narsaraopet was going to become district head quarters and on that eve, they have floated a scheme making house sites available with minimum area of 240 Sq. yards together with bumper prizes, and that A-2 to A-5 also made personal representations about the same and that the accused induced the complainant and several others to join in the scheme and that the complainant took membership in respect of two plots bearing Nos.188 and 189 and that in the function arranged in connection with first draw for allotment of plot in Vasavi Kalyana Mandapam, A-2 to A-5 addressed the gathering and reiterated the above representations. It is further alleged that the scheme was started in July, 1992 and came to close by August, 1996 and that draw for allotment of plots should have taken place in September, 1996 itself and that the accused did not choose to conduct any such draw in spite of demands. The complainant preferred complaint before the District Forum at Guntur in O.P. No.367/1997. The complainant also filed suit in O.S. No.19/1999 in Principal Junior Civil Judge court, Narsaraopet for permanent injunction restraining the accused from proceeding with draw for allotment of plots on 05.02.1999 without getting lay out approval and distribution of bumper prizes. The Magistrate forwarded the private complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narsaraopet for investigation under Section 156(3. Cr.P.C. and for report. After investigation the Sub Divisional Police Officer (Deputy Superintendent of Police., Narsaraopet filed final report before the Magistrate referring the case as false and as one purely of civil nature. Thereupon, the complainant further pursued the matter before the Magistrate who recorded sworn statements of the complainant and his witnesses and passed order dated 12.08.2004 in C.F.R. No.651/1999 dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. holding that the complainant could not prove his case by adducing positive evidence and that the matter is purely of civil nature and that there are no merits in the complaint. As against the said order, the complainant filed Criminal Revision Petition No.149/2004 before the Sessions Court and the X Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court., Guntur at Narsaraopet passed the impugned order therein. 3. It is contended by senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that petitioners 1 to 3/A-3 to A-5 were never partners of A-1 and that no offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C was made out as against A-3 to A-5. Reliance was placed on Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Limited V. Rajvir Industries Limited (2009.3 Supreme Court cases (Crl.) 824 and it was contended that documents of unimpeachable character can be taken into consideration while hearing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the High Court. 4. This Court in order dated 12.04.2006 in Civil Revision Petition No.4628 of 2003 which arose out of civil proceedings between the parties, observed that name of A-3 (2nd) defendant therein. is not shown as one of the partners of A-1 firm in partnership deed dated 18.11.1992. 4. This Court in order dated 12.04.2006 in Civil Revision Petition No.4628 of 2003 which arose out of civil proceedings between the parties, observed that name of A-3 (2nd) defendant therein. is not shown as one of the partners of A-1 firm in partnership deed dated 18.11.1992. Further, in order dated 15.11.2006 the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad observed that in copy of partnership deed and copy of registration certificate, A-5 is not shown as partner in Nagarjuna Real Estates (A-1.. The petitioners also filed copies of deed of partnership dated 18.11.1992, Form-C and Form-A issued by the Registrar of Firms, Hyderabad relating to Nagarjuna Real Estate. They do not show A-3 to A-5 as partners in A-1. 5. It is contended for the petitioners that even though A-3 to A-5 had nothing to do with A-1 firm, they were being harassed by the defacto-complainant and that the criminal complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. It is further contended that the revisional Court should not have remanded the matter to the Magistrate for fresh consideration of the material. The Additional Sessions Judge remanded the matter to the Magistrate having regard to the fact that A-3 to A-5 were described as directors of A-1 firm in several publications including one in souvenir brought out by the Bar Association, Narsaraopet. It is contended that A-3 to A-5 were never signatories or parties to those documents and that if something was published by including their names, they may not be held responsible. 6. On the other hand, placing reliance on Chandra Deo Singh V. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SUPREME COURT 1430 and Nagawwa V. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 1947, it is contended by senior counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant that the accused have no right of participation in pre-cognizance proceedings and that therefore, this petition filed by A-3 to A-5 is not maintainable in law. No doubt, the accused has no right of participation in pre-cognizance proceedings before the Magistrate. Until the case is taken on file and registered as C.C or P.R.C or S.T.C and summons was issued, the accused can not appear in Court and contest the proceedings. No doubt, the accused has no right of participation in pre-cognizance proceedings before the Magistrate. Until the case is taken on file and registered as C.C or P.R.C or S.T.C and summons was issued, the accused can not appear in Court and contest the proceedings. At the same time, in a revision petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C before the Sessions Judge or the High Court, no adverse order touching the respondent who is an accused can be passed without notice to him. For that reason, the X Additional Sessions Judge gave notice to all the accused and heard them before passing the impugned order. Since the impugned order was passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in the presence of the accused and after hearing their contentions, the accused questioned the impugned order before this Court by way of this petition. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners, who are A-3 to A-5 have no locus standi to file this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C questioning the impugned order. Further, any accused person or complainant or any other person affected are entitled to tap doors of the High Court invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C for any relief or reddressal in order to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure ends of Justice. Thus, inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is unlimited, the only limitation being securing ends of Justice within the frame work of criminal procedure and more particularly as laid down by the apex Court in State of Haryana V. Bhajanlal 1992 Crl.L.J-527. Thus, the accused persons are entitled to approach this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C in case they felt that they were being harassed by any agency or person otherwise than legal and judicial process. In that view of the matter, irrespective of stage of the case, this Court can entertain a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C in order to give relief to the needy in order to secure ends of Justice. Therefore, it cannot be staid that the petitioners have no locus standi to file this petition questioning pre-cognizance proceedings pending in the lower Courts. 7. Therefore, it cannot be staid that the petitioners have no locus standi to file this petition questioning pre-cognizance proceedings pending in the lower Courts. 7. Having regard to the above discussed un-questionable material produced before this Court, this Court is of the opinion that A-3 to A-5 who are petitioners herein have nothing to do with A-1 firm or its business of running of schemes, allotment of plots, conducting of draws, giving of prizes or bumper prizes to members in any scheme muchless in collection of instalment amounts from A-1's customers including the 2nd respondent/complainant. In my opinion, further enquiry ordered by the X Additional Sessions Judge is not warranted in this case and it amounts to further harassment to A3 to A-5 by way of abuse of process of Court by the 2nd respondent. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside order dated 25.11.2005 passed by the X Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court., Guntur at Narsaraopet in Criminal Revision Petition No.149/2005 and confirming order dated 12.08.2004 passed by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Narsaraopet in C.F.R No.651/1999.