JUDGMENT : Ram Krishna Gautam, J. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant Dr. Jaipal Gupta @ Jai Prakash Gupta against State of U.P. and Dr. Pankaj Sharma with prayer to quash order dated 7.9.2019 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Meerut, in revision and the summoning order dated 30.4.2016 passed by A.C.J.M.-V, Meerut, as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 414 of 2016, Dr. Pankaj Sharma Vs. Dr. J. P. Gupta, under Sections 420, 504, 506 I.P.C., pending in court of A.C.J.M.-V, Meerut. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for applicant argued that for the same occurrence an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by complainant and the same was dismissed for want of prosecution. Again, this is the second application with same accusation got filed u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., wherein above fact of previous application was not disclosed and this application was treated as a complaint, wherein statements of complainant recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and of his witnesses u/s 202 Cr.P.C. were at variance with previous statement made in previously instituted application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and Trial Judge passed summoning order, as above. This was challenged before Court of revision and learned Additional Sessions Judge in the body of order mentioned the objection raised by applicant and the argument advanced by counsel for applicant, but did not give any finding about same and dismissed revision, which was abuse of process of court. Hence this proceeding with above prayer. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application. 5. Admittedly, previous application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed for want of prosecution i.e. it was not decided on merit. The application moved u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was with prayer for directing Station Officer concerned to register and investigate the case, which remained pending for more than a year and owing to absence of applicant, it was dismissed for want of prosecution. Hence dismisssal of this application was neither on merit nor was at bar for subsequent proceeding. The application moved u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was with prayer for directing Station Officer concerned to register and investigate the case, which remained pending for more than a year and owing to absence of applicant, it was dismissed for want of prosecution. Hence dismisssal of this application was neither on merit nor was at bar for subsequent proceeding. Second application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., moved with same contention, was treated as a complaint, wherein complainant was examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C., who reiterated his version and this was supported by two witnesses in their statements recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Though there is variance regarding amount and place of its delivery but delivery under deceit is there in both applications. Hence it is a question of fact to be seen by trial court at the stage of trial, but it was not within jurisdiction of revisional court or before this court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. as meticulous examination of facts, which are question of facts, are to be made by trial court during trial. But from the contention made in complaint, there is sufficient accusation for offences for which summoning order is there. Same is with full reiteration by statements of complainant and his witnesses recorded u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. 6. Saving of inherent power of High Court, as given under Section 482 Cr.P.C, provides that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Meaning thereby this inherent power is with High Court (I) to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any other order under this Code (II) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court (III) or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gaurishetty Mahesh, (2010) 6 JT 588 (SC): (2010) 6 SCALE 767 : 2010 Cr. LJ 3844 has propounded that "While exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable apprehension of it accusation would not be sustained. LJ 3844 has propounded that "While exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable apprehension of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge/Court". In another subsequent Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474 , hon'ble Apex Court propounded that "Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 at an interlocutory stage which after filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure, or to delay the trial which enable to win over the witness or may disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriage of Justice". In again another subsequent Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781 , the Apex Court has propounded "Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself." While interpreting this jurisdiction of High Court Apex Court in Popular Muthiah v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296 has propounded "High Court can exercise jurisdiction suo motu in the interest of justice. It can do so while exercising other jurisdictions such as appellate or revisional jurisdiction. No formal application for invoking inherent jurisdiction is necessary. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of substantive as well as procedural matters. It can as well be exercised in respect of incidental or supplemental power irrespective of nature of proceedings". 7. It can do so while exercising other jurisdictions such as appellate or revisional jurisdiction. No formal application for invoking inherent jurisdiction is necessary. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of substantive as well as procedural matters. It can as well be exercised in respect of incidental or supplemental power irrespective of nature of proceedings". 7. Regarding prevention of abuse of process of Court, Apex Court in Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990) CriLJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494 has propounded "To prevent abuse of the process of the Court, High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 could quash the proceedings but there would be justification for interference only when the complaint did not disclose any offence or was frivolous vexatious or oppressive" as well as in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) CriLJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 1 , Apex Court propounded "In exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 High Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not". 8. Meaning thereby, exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as above. 9. Hence, under above facts and circumstances, there is no ground for this application. 10. Accordingly, the application is rejected. 11. However, in case the applicant surrenders before before the court concerned within 30 days from today and applies for bail, it will decide his bail application in wake of the law laid down by this Court in the Full Bench decision of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., (2005) CriLJ 755 affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2009) 4 SCC 437 . 12. For a period of 30 days from today, which shall not be extended further in any case, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant, in the above mentioned case.