ORDER : Mrs. Sabina, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR No.254/2014 registered at Police Station Sodala, Jaipur, for offence u/S. 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B Indian Penal Code 1860 challenging the orders dated 22.07.2016 and 4.2.2016. 2. I have heard the petitioner and learned counsel for Finance Company and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. 3. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he had purchased the Car in question in an auction from the respondent- Finance Company. It is the case of the petitioner that, although, the Car in question was having a registration number but when the petitioner inquired from the Registering Authority, it transpired that the vehicle had not been registered by the Registering Authority. FIR No.245 dated 10.7.2014 was lodged at the instance of the petitioner against the Finance Company under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B Indian Penal Code 1860 at the Police Station Sodala, Jaipur City (South). 4. After investigation of the case, Investigating Agency presented a negative report. Petitioner filed a protest petition. Magistrate vide order dated 4.2.2016 dismissed the protest petition and accepted the negative report submitted by the Investigating Agency. 5. Aggrieved against the said order petitioner preferred revision petition. Vide order dated 22.7.2016 the Court of Revision dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner. 6. Learned Court of Revision, while dismissing the revision petition has held that the vehicle in question was got financed by Satpal. However, Satpal failed to pay the instalments, and vehicle in question was then confiscated by the Finance Company. Thereafter, petitioner had purchased the said vehicle in an open auction. The registration number of the Car at the time of auction was temporary and had been issued by Dhingra Motors in favour of Satpal. During investigation, it has transpired that the vehicle in question had been sold, “As-is - Where-is”. So far as permit fee, road tax, parking charges, repairing bill and other charges are concerned, the same were to be borne by the auction purchaser. Petitioner had purchased the vehicle in an open auction. Further it has been noticed by the Court of Revision that there was nothing on record that the Finance Company had submitted any registration application, road tax application etc. Petitioner had purchased the vehicle in an open auction. Further it has been noticed by the Court of Revision that there was nothing on record that the Finance Company had submitted any registration application, road tax application etc. Further it has been noticed by the Court of Revision that there was no condition at the time of auction that the Finance Company would get the vehicle registered or deposit the road tax etc. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the reasons given by the Court of Revision, while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner, are sound reasons and call for no interference. 8. In Manoj v. Prem Lal, 2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 941, it has been held as under:- “Power under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has to be exercised sparingly and such power was not to be utilized as a substitute for second revision. Ordinarily, when a revision has been barred under Section 397(3) of the Code, the complainant or the accused cannot be allowed to take recourse to revision before the High Court under Section 397(1) of the Code, as it is prohibited under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. However, the High Court can entertain a petition under Section 482 of the Code, when there is serious miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of the Court or when mandatory provision of law are not complied with and when the High Court feels that the inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised to correct the mistake committed by the revisional Court.” 9. In the present case, petitioner has availed his remedy of revision before the Sessions Court and had failed to establish that there has been a serious miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of Law which would call for exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.