JUDGMENT 1. - This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused Tejman Madan against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur dated March 27, 1979, registering a case under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and directing that process be issued to him. 2. The petitioners case is that the complaint is absolutely false and vexatious and there is not even a prima facie case made out against him which could enable the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the case and direct that process be issued to the petitioner. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate at Jodhpur had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case, as neither the alleged deception was practised at Jodhpur nor the offence of cheating is alleged to have been completed here. It was also submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and the criminal court should not have stepped in. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant argued that although the agreement had taken place at Delhi, yet the complainant was induced to deliver a sum of Rs. 6,000/- at Jodhpur, which formed part of the purchase price of the plot of land in question, as the same was sent from Jodhpur by cheque on July 18, 1967, and as such the learned Magistrate at Jodhpur had jurisdiction to try the offence. It was also submitted that the offence of cheating prima facie appears to have been committed by the accused from the allegations made in the complaint and the statements of the two witnesses examined by the learned Magistrate under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the complainant also refuted the suggestion that the dispute was entirely of a civil nature and it was argued that the complainant was dishonestly induced by the accused to deliver the money to him under a false impressions that a plot of land situated near Faridabad shall be sold to the complainant along with a constructed house and that a case of cheating is fully made out. 4. 4. It is the case of the complainant, which is not disputed by the accused, that an agreement was executed between the complainant and the accused as Managing Director of M/s Swatantra Land and Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi on June 2, 1966 for the sale of a plot of land in the so called Indraprasth Colony, sponsored on the land of village Itmadpur, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, in the State of Haryana, by the aforesaid Finance Company. In lieu of the purchase price of the aforesaid piece of land, the complainant gave a cheque for Rs. 7000/- on June 2, 1966 and thereafter sent some more instalments, finally a sum of Rs. 6000/- was sent by cheque dated July 18, 1967 from Jodhpur by the complainant to the accused. The complainant has further alleged that thereafter, on making enquiries, he came to know that there was no land with the accused nor there was any colony by the name of Indraprasth Colony at the specified place and that it was all a hoax and that the accused had never intended to deliver a piece of land to the complainant, but by deceit the complainant was induced to part with over Rs. 20,000/-in instalments, of including Rs. 6000/- sent from Jodhpur on July 18, 1967. 5. Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another or where it consists of several acts done indifferent local areas, the offence can be tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Moreover, section 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically deals with offences like cheating and provides that any offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property may be inquired into or tried by a court, within whose local jurisdiction the property was delivered by the person deceived or was received by the accused person. According to the allegations made in the complaint in the present case, a sum of Rs. According to the allegations made in the complaint in the present case, a sum of Rs. 6000/- was paid by the complainant by cheque dated July 18, 1967 from Jodhpur, as part of the sale price of land, which he was dishonestly induced to deliver and as this part of the property was delivered by the complainant at Jodhpur, accordance with the provisions of section 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrates Court situated at Jodhpur can lawfully take cognizance of the offence. Where payment in pursuance of a dishonest inducement was stipulated to be made by instalments, then payment of every instalment constituted part of the very same offence of cheating and section 178(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be attracted if the offence consists of several acts done in different local areas. In such a case, the Court having jurisdiction over any such local area may try the offence and the Magistrates Court situated at Jodhpur was certainly situated in one of the local areas where part of the money, of which the complainant alleges to have been dishonestly induced to part with, was delivered. Thus, considering the allegations made in the complaint. I have no doubt that the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Jodhpur can take cognizance of the offence. The argument of the learned counsel for the accused in this respect is untenable and cannot be accepted. 6. It was then strenuously argued by learned counsel for the accused that from the statements of witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant no offence appears to have been made out, even prima facie, and it would-amount to mere harassment if the accused petitioner is required to come down to Jodhpur from Delhi on each and every date of hearing and stand his trial in the Court of Judicial Magistral at Jodhpur, 7. I have carefully considered the averments made in the complaint and have also read the statements of the complainant Motilal and his witness Mahavir Singh. Whether the complaint is frivolous or not, is to be determined at this stage only on the basis of the material placed by the complainant. Whatever defence the accused may have will be enquired into at the trial. Whether the complaint is frivolous or not, is to be determined at this stage only on the basis of the material placed by the complainant. Whatever defence the accused may have will be enquired into at the trial. At this stage, for determining the question whether any process should be issued to the accused or not, the Magistrate has to be satisfied as to whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. The allegations made in the complaint have, therefore, to be carefully scrutinised with the aforesaid object in view. Of course, it should not be lost sight of that a person named in the complaint as an accused should not be called upon to face a trial on obviously frivolous allegations. Having considered the allegations made in the complaint along with the statements of the two witnesses, which forms the material for consideration whether process should be issued under section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or not, I am satisfied that it cannot be held in this case that the learned Magistrate acted erroneously. I may only repeat that at this stage the Magistrate has to satisfy himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding and where there is prima facie evidence, even though the accused may have a defence which will be enquired into at the trial, the matter should be left to be decided at the appropriate stage and the issuance of process cannot be refused merely on the ground that the accused has a defence. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at this stage when the only question for determination before the learned Magistrate was whether process should be issued or not. Thus, what the Magistrate is required to consider is whether there is evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint and not whether evidence is sufficient to warrant a conviction. 8. It may also be observed that after a perusal of the allegations made in the complaint, if cannot be held in the present case that the dispute between the parties is entirely of a civil nature. 8. It may also be observed that after a perusal of the allegations made in the complaint, if cannot be held in the present case that the dispute between the parties is entirely of a civil nature. It is alleged by the complainant that lie was deprived of property and was induced to deliver money on account of the alleged dishonest act of the accused in assuring the complainant that a plot of land situated in Indraprasth Colony was being sold to him and that the Finance Company, of which the accused petitioner was the Managing Director, would provide the purchaser with a fully developed plot of land, but on enquiry the complainant, found that there was nothing like Indraprasth Colonyat the site. These allegations have to be enquired into and at this stage it cannot be held that there is no prima facie case and the learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code,against the accused petitioner, 9. The petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has no merit and is dismissed. The record may be returned to the trial Court immediately.Application Dismissed. *******