1. By filing the present petition u/S 482, Cr.P.C. it is being sought that the complaint filed by the non-applicant against the present petitioners he quashed.

2. Facts of the case are as below:

The petitioner and the non-applicant are partners of a firm. The present non-applicant filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal, alleging, inter alia, that the accounts of the said partnership firm used to remain in the custody of petitioner No.4 who was responsible for maintaining the said account. It has been further alleged that from the month of March 1989 petitioners No. 1 to 3 in collusion with petitioner No.4 conspired to commit criminal breach of trust by fraudulently depriving the present non-applicant of his share and earnings of the said firm and usurping amount of the said firm. To fulfil the said conspiracy, the said partners of the firm kept the present non-applicant away from the accounts of the said firm from the month fo March 1989. Thereafter no amount was paid to the present non-applicant. The said firm obtained payments of rupees four lacs from the Public Health Engineering Department of Bhopal Division and about nine lacs from Rajgarh, Sehore, Shahjapur, Guna and Raisen hut no account of the said payment, was supplied to the present non-applicant. Nevertheless, the present petitioner No.4 confessed before the witnesses of the complainant/non-applicant that the said amount had been received by the said firm.

3. It has further been alleged in the said complaint that the said partnership firm possesses the articles detailed in para 4 of the said complaint. The partners of the said firm sold one truck belonging to the said firm. The non-applicant demanded from petitioner No.4, to give him accounts of the firm but the present petitioners did not give the said accounts of the firm to him. On the other hand, they misbehaved with him and criminally intimidated him. Thus, in spite of repeated demand, the present petitioners were not giving the accounts of the said firm to the present non-applicant. On the said basis, it was alleged by the complainant/present non-applicant that the petitioners have committed offences punishable under section 406, 420 and 380, Indian Penal Code.

4. After recording the statement of the complainant and making an enquiry under section 203, Cri. Pro. Code, the trial Court registered an offence punishable under section 380, I.P.C., against the present petitioners.

5. The present petitioners filed a revision petition against thesaid order which was rejected.

6. Now, the petitioners by filing the present petition seek quashing of the said order under section 482, Cri. Pro. Code.

7. It has been argued for the petitioners that even if the entire complaint, as it is, is believed, no case for alleged commission of an offence punishable under section 380, Indian Penal Code, is made out against the present petitioners. Even if, every word of the complaint is believed, the case or dispute is of purely civil nature and registration of the complaint for alleged commission of offence punishable under section 380, Indian Penal Code, is obviously and clearly abuse of the process of the Court.

8. In reply, it has been submitted by the non-applicant that since it is a second revision in the garb of a petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, this petition is not maintainable. It has been further urged that since the complaint has been registered and process has been issued by the trial Court, it is incumbent upon the petitioners to approach the trial Court itself and submit pleas raised in the present petition in that Court. The said matter cannot be agitated in the High Court by filing a petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code.

9. It is obvious that sub-section (3) of section 397 bars only a second revision petition and the authority reported in Dharampal v. Ramabri [AIR 1993 SC 1362] does not abrogate or annul the powers conferred under section 482, Crim