GUMAN MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. against the order dated 18 -6 -1986 of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dholpur in Criminal Appeal No. 43/85.
(2.) MR . Tyagi has argued that the prosecution under Section 210, I.P.C. is a gross abuse of process of the court because the so called earlier payment was not verified in the court and was wholly based on a concocted false story. In support of his argument he submitted that when the demand for attachment of the crop was made, this plea was not taken in the year 1976 that the payment has already been made. Learned Counsel for the non -petitioner submitted that Section 482, Cr. P.C. cannot be invoked and in support of his submission he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sooraj Devi's case 1981 Cr. LR 174. Head Note B reads as under: The inherent power of the court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code. The inherent power of the court is not contemplated by the saving provision contained in Section 362 and, therefore, the attempt to invoke that power can be of no avail.
(3.) HE also relied upon the judgment of Calcutta High Court in B.K. Bhomik v. Princess Confectionary and Ors. 1979 Cr.LJ 1473.;