Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. In the instant application, filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire prosecution and the order dated 26th May, 1994 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Patna taking cognizance of the offences under Secs. 420, 406, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code in complaint Case No. 954 (Q/1993. 2. The facts of the case lies in a very narrow compass: The complainant O.P. No. 2 filed a complaint alleging inter alia that he along with other persons, went to village Saguna Nayatola in search of land, sometime in the month of February/March, 1992 where he came in contact with the accused persons, Including the petitioner, the petitioner was eager to dispose of his land of plot No. 1981 and 1893 under Khata No. 306 and the complainant finally entered into an agreement with the accused persons by executing a deed of agreement to sale on 27.10.1992. Pursuant to the said agreement, a sum of Rs. 10, 000 was also given to them as advance money by cheque No. 159632, dated 26.10.1992 and subsequently a sum of Rs. 90, 000.00 was also given to them by three cheques drawn from the Central Bank of India in favour of respective accused persons, including the petitioners. It was alleged that the cheques were encashed by the accused petitioners receiving a total sum of Rs. 1 lac as advance money to be adjusted towards consideration money when final transfer deed was to be executed and registered within the stipulated time. In the mean time, the complainant learnt that the accused persons, including petitioners were owner of only 1 bigha 2 katha of land of plot nos. 1991 and 1893. the complainant claimed to has orally agreed with the accused persons that he would sell 1 bigha 2 katha in favour of Sahkari represented by the complainant as its Secretary. On the basis of alleged settlement as claimed by the complainant, it was alleged that the accused persons kept the complainant hanging for long time and ultimately the complainant learnt that, the accused persons were not intending to sell the land and his intention was to grab money of the complainant under the deceptive grab of such false document. On the basis of alleged settlement as claimed by the complainant, it was alleged that the accused persons kept the complainant hanging for long time and ultimately the complainant learnt that, the accused persons were not intending to sell the land and his intention was to grab money of the complainant under the deceptive grab of such false document. The complainant further alleged that he approached the accused persons and sent legal notice but the accused persons adopted adhesive attitude and they dishonestly and fraudulently took the money from the complainant to make delivery of the amount paid which they received as a result of such inducement with no intention to enter into any transaction and thereby committed offence under Secs. 465, 468, 420 and 471, IPC 3. It is stated inter alia in the application that after the complaint was filed, the Chief Judicial Magistrate did not take cognizance of the offence mentioned in the complaint petition by examining the complainant on solemn affirmation rather made over the file to the Judicial Magistrate under Section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) for enquiry and trial. The Learned Magistrate before whom the complaint was sent, after examining the complainant and after making necessary enquiry, took cognizance on 8th December 1993 against the petitioner and other accused persons under the aforesaid sections of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner stated that he came to know of the proceeding only in the last week of September 1995 when steps towards execution of non-bailable warrant of arrest was taken against him. 4. Mr. Madhup, Learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner assailed the order of the Learned Magistrate taking cognizance and also the prosecution on various grounds. The Learned Counsel firstly submitted that the very initial order dated 26.11.1993 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, transferring the file under Sec. 192 of the Code without taking cognizance is bad in law and is wholly without jurisdiction. The Learned Counsel submitted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate before taking action under Sec. 192 of the Code was bound to take cognizance. Since the initial order dated 26.11.1993 is illegal, the subsequent order passed by the transferee Court taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner is vitiated in law. The Learned Counsel submitted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate before taking action under Sec. 192 of the Code was bound to take cognizance. Since the initial order dated 26.11.1993 is illegal, the subsequent order passed by the transferee Court taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner is vitiated in law. The Learned Counsel further assailed the impugned order and the prosecution on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction also. The Learned Counsel submitted that all acts and transactions, negotiation, verification of land and agreement were entered into and other acts were done within the territorial jurisdiction of Danapur and none of the acts having been done within the jurisdiction of Patna Sadar Division, the Learned Sub-Divisional judicial Magistrate, Danapur only will have jurisdiction over the case and the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition and to pass the impugned order. Thirdly the Learned Counsel, submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute an offence inasmuch as no dishonest intention appears from the complaint petition and further the allegation made by the complainant are purely of Civil dispute. The order taking cognizance by the Magistrate is, therefore, based on no material available on the record for taking cognizance of the offence. 5. I will take up the first point raised by the petitioner as to whether the order dated 26.11.1993 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 192(2) of the Code is in accordance with law, for answering this question raised by the petitioner it is worth to look into the various provisions of the Code. Chapter-XIV of the Code lays down the procedure for initiation of criminal proceedings, which contains Secs. 190 to 191. The relevant sections are Sections 190, 1991 and 192 which are quoted herein-below: Sec. 190-Cognizance of offences by Magistrates- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter any Magistrate of the first class and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under Sub-sec. 190 to 191. The relevant sections are Sections 190, 1991 and 192 which are quoted herein-below: Sec. 190-Cognizance of offences by Magistrates- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter any Magistrate of the first class and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under Sub-sec. (2), may take cognizance of any offence- (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge that such offence has been committed: (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under Sub-sec. (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try. Sec. 191.-Transfer on application of the accused-When a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence under Clause (c) of Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 190, the accused shall, before any evidence is take, be informed that he is entitled to have the case inquired into or tried by another Magistrate and if the accused or any of the accused, if there be more than one, objects to further proceedings before the Magistrates taking cognizance, the case shall be transferred to such other Magistrate as may be specified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in this behalf. Sec. 192-Making over of cases to Magistrates.- (1) Any Chief Judicial Magistrate may, after taking cognizance of an offence, make over the case for inquiry or trial to any competent Magistrate subordinate to him. (2) Any Magistrate of the first class empowered in this behalf by the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, after taking cognizance of an offence, make over the case for inquiry or trial to such other competent Magistrate as the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, by general or special order, specify and thereupon such magistrate may hold the inquiry or trial." Chapter XV of the Code lays down the procedure to deal with the complaint made by private persons. This Chapter contains four Sections, namely, Secs. This Chapter contains four Sections, namely, Secs. 200 to 203 which read as under: Sec. 200.-Examination of complainant.-A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses and also by the Magistrate- Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses- (a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a court has made the complaint; or (b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under Sec. 192: Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under Sec. 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-examine them. Sec. 201.-Procedure by Magistrate not competent to take cognizance of thecase.-If the complaint is made to a Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of the offence, he shall,- (a) if the complaint is in writing, return it for presentation to the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect; (b) if the complaint is not in writing, direct the complaint to the property Court. Sec. 202-Postponement of issue of process.- (1) Any Magistrate on receipt of complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Sec. 192, may if he thinks fit postpone the issue of process against the accused and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding: provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made,- (a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by a Court of sessions; or (b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under Sec. 200. (2) In an inquiry under Sub-sec. (2) In an inquiry under Sub-sec. (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath: Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is trial exclusively by a Court of Session, he shall call upon the complaint to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. (3) If an investigation under Sub-sec. (1) is made by person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer in charge of a police station except the power to attest without warrant. Sec. 203-Dismissal of complaint.-If after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the enquiry or investigation (if any) under Sec. 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing. 6. From bare reading of the aforesaid Sections of the Code, I do not find any force in the submission of the Learned Counsel to the effect that transfer of file by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to another Magistrate without taking cognizance is bad in law. Taking cognizance does not mean issuance of processes against the persons named in the first information report or in the complaint. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Learned Magistrate to whom the file was transferred had no authority to take cognizance. Form the reading of Sections 202 and 203 of the Code together it is evident that the Chief Judicial Magistrate either himself proceed with the complaint and examine the witnesses before issuance of processes or made over the file to another Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance for the purpose of enquiry and trial. It is well settled that the word cognizance means application of mind by the Magistrate. In the instant case, the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate firstly applied his mind to the complaint filed by the opposite party and then made over the file to another Magistrate for proceeding with the matter in the manner provided under the aforesaid sections. I, therefore, do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Learned Magistrate taking cognizance against the petitioners. I, therefore, do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Learned Magistrate taking cognizance against the petitioners. The Learned Counsel then assailed the order on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. According to the Learned Counsel, all negotiations transactions, execution of agreement and other actions have been done within the territorial jurisdiction of Danapur and, therefore, the Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur only has jurisdiction over the case. The impugned order passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna is, therefore; wholly without jurisdiction. 7. From perusal of the complaint petition it appears that the complainant resides at Lohia Nagar, Patna within the jurisdiction of Patna Sadar. If further appears from the complaint that the advance consideration was paid by the complaint by Cheque No. 149632 dated 26th October 1992 drawn on Central Bank of India, Lohia Nagar, Patna, which the petitioner encashed. It was further alleged that a sum of rs. 90, 000 was also given to them by different cheques, it was further alleged that the agreement was prepared and typed by one Shivmuni Lai at Patna. From the allegations made in the complaint petition it appears prima facie that the post of acts and omissions have been done or completed within the jurisdiction of Patna Sadar. If that be the position, then initiation of criminal proceeding before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made above, I am of the opinion that initiation of proceeding and the order of cognizance by the Learned Magistrate cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. I, therefore, do not find and merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed.