1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Pukhraj Lohiya & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B.CR.MISC. PETITION NO.386/2004 against the order dt.12.2.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur in Cr.Revision No.41/2001. DATE OF ORDER :: July 24, 2006 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Sandeep Mehta, for the petitioners. Mr.Ashok Upadhyaya, P.P. for the State. Mr. M.C.Purohit, for non-petitioner No.2. BY THE COURT: By the instant criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have challenged the order dt. 12.2.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Cr.Revision No.41/2001 whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dt. 13.12.2000 passed by Additional Chief Judicial 2 Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur in Cr.Original Case No.347/2000 was dismissed. The trial court by order dt. 13.12.2000, took the cognizance of the offence under section 420 I.P.C. against the petitioners. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that there was some family settlement between the parties and, therefore, at the relevant time of renewal of licence for allotment of shop, the names of complainant were not included, though earlier they were allottees of the shops. The renewal was in favour of the petitioners. Learned counsel for non-petitioner No.2 disputes the settlement and submits that shops were originally allotted in favour of the petitioners and the complainants but the petitioners by deceitful means got the renewal in their favour excluding the names of the complainants and, therefore, the petitioners have committed the offence of cheating. Both the courts below concurrently found that a prima facie case against the petitioners is made out. It cannot be said that the order impugned would result in miscarriage of justice. The inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised 3 sparingly and consciously. In my view the order impugned does not warrant any interference in the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition is dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR),J. m.asif/-