JUDGMENT 1. - This application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been directed against the order passed by the Sessions Judge dated March 13, 1987 where-by the learned Sessions Judge rejected the revision petition of the applicant filed against the order taking cognizance against him under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this case are that Padamchand and Kulwant Rai are real brothers. It is alleged that by way of a Will a Nohra which is the subject matter of this dispute was given by the father to Kulwant Rai But, Padamchand is alleged to have entered into a conspiracy with Preetamchand and sold out the share of Kulwantrai of this Nohra to Preetamchand. On this, a complaint was filed by Kulwantrai under Section 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code against Padamchand and Preetamchand. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against Padamchand and Preetamchand under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. 3. I have heard Mr. Bhagwati Prasad as well as Mr. ML. Garg. 4. Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, learned Counsel submits that offence of cheating under Section 420, Indian Penal Code is prima-facie not made out on the facts given in the complaint. Learned counsel submit that a civil suit is also pending between the parties, therefore, this criminal complaint cannot be used to twist the arm of the other side so as to get better position in the suit. 5. Mr. Garg, learned Counsel for the non-petitioner invited my attention to the Will Ex. P. 1A and in that it prima-facie appears that this Nohra came in the share of Kulwantrai. If it is so, then apparently Padamchand had no right to part away with this share, in favour of Preetamchand, the tenant of Kulwantrai. 6. After considering the submissions made by both the learned Counsel, I am of the view that at this stage it is pre-mature to say that whether offence under Section 482 Cr. FC is for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Looking to the peculiar facts of the present case and especially Ex. P. 1-A the Will, which shows that the Nohra which is the subject matter of this dispute has come in the share of Kulwant Rai, therefore, Padamchand had no business to sell the disputed Nohra is favour of Preetam Chand. Looking to the peculiar facts of the present case and especially Ex. P. 1-A the Will, which shows that the Nohra which is the subject matter of this dispute has come in the share of Kulwant Rai, therefore, Padamchand had no business to sell the disputed Nohra is favour of Preetam Chand. In this view of the matter, at this stage I am not inclined to invoke my inherent jurisdiction to quash the charge framed against the accused under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. 7. In the result, I do not find any merit in this application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code The same is dismissed. 8. The record which have been received may be sent back.Application dismissed. *******