JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition has been filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. against the orders dated 20.7.2009 and 24.9.2009 whereby cognizance has been taken against the present petitioners for the offences under Sections 287 and 326, I.P.C. 2. The main contention of the present petitioners is that petitioner No. 2 was not present at the scene of occurrence and there is nothing to connect the present petitioner with the offence. The cognizance taken under Section 326, I.P.C. is per se illegal and an abuse of process of Court. No prima facie case is made out against petitioner No. 2 and no prima facie case is made out under Section 326, I.P.C. against petitioner No. 1. 3. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that this petition is not maintainable. The impugned orders are revisable one and the petition should be rejected summarily. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that alternative remedy of filing revision under Section 397 is available, could not be ground to dismiss the petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. He has placed reliance on the judgment reported in the case of Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2009) 1 SCC (Cri.) 806 wherein it has been categorically held that whenever Courts comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of Court and that the ends of justice require that the proceedings should be quashed, the Court would not hesitate to do so and the Courts must use their inherent powers to prevent the abuse of process of Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 5. In the light of above, on consideration of present case, it clearly shows that the impugned orders are gross abuse of process of law, as there is no iota of evidence against petitioner No. 2. The injured Tarun Pal has not stated anything against him. 5. In the light of above, on consideration of present case, it clearly shows that the impugned orders are gross abuse of process of law, as there is no iota of evidence against petitioner No. 2. The injured Tarun Pal has not stated anything against him. He was not present at the scene of occurrence, hence no case is made out against petitioner No. 2 to proceed against him under Section 287 and 326, I.P.C. At the same time, it is also pertinent to note that the cognizance has been taken against petitioner No. 1 for the offence under Section 326, I.P.C., whereas the case of the prosecution is that when the complainant was working on the automatic machine, he received injuries on his hands. 6. Section 326 I.P.C. reads as under : "326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.- Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 335, voluntarily, causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 7. A bare reading of Section 326 goes to show that the injuries received while working on a machine could not be covered under Section 326 I.P.C. Hence the order dated 20.2.2009 whereby cognizance has been taken against Babu Kutty for the offence under Section 287, I.P.C. is liable to be quashed and set aside qua petitioner No. 1 and hence quashed and at the same time, the order dated 24.9.2009 whereby the cognizance has been taken against the present petitioners for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. is also liable to be quashed and set aside and hence quashed. 8. Hence, this revision petition is partly allowed as indicated above.Revision petition partly allowed. *******