This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the proceeding of the complaint case being Case No.571 c/94 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Guwahati. 2. On 17.5.94 the opposite party as complainant filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup alleging that the complainant purchased a Maruti Van bearing registration No. AS-Q1/Q-J2406 from the petitioner for a price of Rs. 1,20,000/-, on 18.10.93 and on 2&TO.$3 the said van was registered in the name of Smti Monideepa Barpujari, the wife of the complainant Further allegation is that the petitioner came to the residence of the opposite party complainant at about 11.30 AM on 2.5.94 and informed him that a team of Madhya Pradesh Police has come to Guwahati to verify the records in DTO Office and the said team had already taken stock of the records. That on the same day the said police came to his residence and seized the van, keys and RC book and took the complainants and his friend Nekib Hussain to the residence of the accused petitioner. It is also stated that the accused confessed that the van was a stolen property, that the van is also subject matter in TT Nagar PS (Bhopal) Case No. 83 R/92 under section 379 IPC as the van was a stolen one. Complainant's case is that in spite of knowing the said van as a stolen property, the accused petitioner had induced the complainant to buy the van for which he is guilty under section 420/414 IPC. 3. On receipt of the complaint, the trial Court on transfer of the case examined the complainant on oath and being satisfied of the existence of a prima facie case took cognizance and issued process accordingly. 4. The grounds taken for quashing are that the van in question is the subject matter of TT Nagar (Bhopal) PS Case No. 83 R/92 and the said van is a stolen one and as such continuation of further proceedings of the said complaint is not maintainable under section 210 (1) CrPC. That the allegations made under section 420/414 do not disclose any offence under those sections, that the petitioner was the bonafide purchaser of the van, that the alleged confession said to be made by the accused petitioner before the Madhya Pradesh Police is not admissible as the same is hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act. That the allegations made under section 420/414 do not disclose any offence under those sections, that the petitioner was the bonafide purchaser of the van, that the alleged confession said to be made by the accused petitioner before the Madhya Pradesh Police is not admissible as the same is hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act. 5. The contention made in the revision petition is that petitioner was the bonafide purchaser of the van in question bearing number RJ-14C-A-9628 which was subsequently numbered as AS-01C-2406. A Money Receipt dated 26.2.93 and the Registration Certificate were produced alongwith the revision petition; that he was in need of a vehicle for his business and the proprietor of M/s Floorage introduced him with one Rajeev Gupta, a resident of Meerut and a supplier of second hand car dealer (Accused in abovementioned TT Nagar (Bhopal) PS Case No 832/92) and he purchased the van in question from him; that he had to sell the vehicle to the complainant for his financial need after three month of his purchase. 6. The opposite party alleges cheating on the part of the accused petitioner and tried to establish that the sale of the van to the accused petitioner was not bonafide and that there is a racket of this type of transaction which would be unearthed. 7. From the above discussion I hold that the contentions made in the petition by the accused petitioner is his defence which he can take in the trial of the case, Bonafide of the petitioner is a matter to be proved by adducing evidence for which trial is necessary. Further section 210 (1) CrPC comes for application, when a Magistrate during the course of enquiry or trial held by him and in this case investigation is in progress for the offence. Section 210(1) CrPC reads as follows: "When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation." 8. This section provides that if a complaint appears to the Magistrate during inquiry or trial that the police is also investigating the same offence, the Court may stay the complaint case and call for the reports from the police on that matter. If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case, or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any police report the Magistrate shall proceed with the case. In the case in hand the place of occurrence, nature of offence and facts are different and has no connection whatsoever with the TT Nagar (Bhopal) PS case. Both the cased are different and distinct, registered for committing different and distinct offences. On such a case, the proceeding in the instant case cannot be interfered with as this will make the trial/proceeding infructuous leading to miscarriage of justice. While taking up a petition for quashing under section 482 CrPC, the Court is to see, on the basis of the complaint, whether there is a prima facie case disclosing the offence alleged, warranting issuance of process against the accused person. In such a case Court will not see whether the cases will end in acquittal or in conviction (relied on 1992 Crl LJ 1956 (SC); Smti Chand Dhawan vs. Jawahar Lal & others). In 1993 Crl L J 3537 (SC) (State of Bihar & another vs. K JD Singh) the Apex Court held that for invoking the inherent power of the Court under section 482 CrPC for quashing a criminal proceeding, prior to commencement of trial and leading of evidence, power should be exercised in exceptional case. In this case I do not find any exceptional case for interference by this Court as on perusal of the complaint and after hearing the counsel of both the parties, the complaint as a whole, in its entirety, makes out a case for trial and being so the Magistrate, under his jurisdiction rightly has taken the cognizance of the case and issuance of process thereof has not suffered from any infirmity. 9. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. The Court below is directed to proceed with the case and dispose of the matter early.