ORDER G. D. Saxena, J. 1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 preferred by the accused/petitioner has been directed against an order dated 24th July,2008 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Morena (M.P.) in Cri. Rev. No.132/08, arising out of the order dated 1/2/08 passed by the trial Magistrate in Cri. Case No.190/08, taking cognizance against the accused for commission of offence punishable under sections 420 and 406 of I.P.C., which stood confirmed by the revisional Court. 2. In brief, the facts just for adjudication of the matter are that on 2nd January 2000, the accused, who was working as a Contractor was said to have been assigned the work of construction by the Government Girls College Morena. It was alleged that he borrowed certain materials to be used in the construction of roof by the respondent No.1-complainant on the assurance that he will return the said materials within a period of one month. The accused despite being made several demands by the complainant, did not return the same to the complainant. When no action was taken by the Police on his report, under such circumstances, the complaint was filed by the respondent No.1 before the trial Magistrate against the accused for commission of offence punishable under sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. The learned trial Magistrate after taking cognizance issued the process against the accused/petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Magistrate, the revision under section 397/401 I.P.C. was preferred before the revisional Court which was dismissed vide order dated 24th July 2008, hence this petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length. Perused the impugned orders passed by the Courts-below and the law applicable to the case. 4. The question falls for consideration before this Court is whether the petition invoking inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when the earlier revision application filed under section 397 Cr.P.C. read with section 401 Cr.P.C seeking same or similar relief, when dismissed on merit. The Apex Court has observed in more than one cases that such petitions, though otherwise, are not maintainable, can even be entertained when special circumstances are made out. The Apex Court has observed in more than one cases that such petitions, though otherwise, are not maintainable, can even be entertained when special circumstances are made out. These observations are in reference to third part of section 482 of Cr.P.C. But ultimately one balanced principle has emerged that the petitions invoking inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. after dismissal/disposal of revision application under section 397 Cr.P.C. read with section 401 Cr.P.C., are not maintainable by the same party, more so, when no special circumstances are made out. The gist of this ratio is reflected in the decision reported in the case of Rajinder Prasad Vs. Bashir and Ors. ( AIR 2001 SC 3524 ). 5. Prior to it, in Krishan Vs. Krishnaveni, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 241 , the Apex Court has held that though the inherent power of the High Court is very wide, yet the same must be exercised sparingly and cautiously particularly in a case where the petitioner is shown to have already invoked the revisional jurisdiction under section 397 of the Code. Only in cases where the High Court finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not correct, the High Court may in its discretion prevent the abuse of process or miscarriage of justice by exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code. 6. Now considering the present scenario of this case, it appears that the accused Sanjeev Goyal (present petitioner) being aggrieved by the order dated 1st February 2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Morena preferred revision petition under section 397 of Cr.P.C. before the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge Morena, which was decided on merits vide order dated 24th July 2008. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional Court, the petitioner again came up under section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court for invoking the inherent powers to quash the orders passed by the trial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 190/2008 and the revisional Court in Cri. Rev. No. 132/2008 which is prohibited by law. 7. In the case of TGN Kumar Vs. Rev. No. 132/2008 which is prohibited by law. 7. In the case of TGN Kumar Vs. State of Kerla ¼2011½ 2 SCC 771, the Hon. Apex Court has held:- “It is equally trite that the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Code have to be exercised sparingly with circumspection, and in rare cases to correct patent illegalities or to prevent miscarriage of justice. In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court had observed that: (SCC p. 555, para 8) “8. … the following principles may be noticed in relation to the exercise of the inherent power of the High Court : (1) that the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party; (2) that it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; (3) that it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.” 8. Keeping the settled principles of law in view, instant petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.