JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - In this application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure accused in I.C.C. No. 124 of 1993 of the Court of J.M.F.C., (Rural), Cuttack has challenged the order dated 27.9.1997. By the said order, learned Magistrate passed order framing charge for the offence u/s 420, I.P.C. and u/s 115(5) (a) and (15) of Orissa Co-operative Societies Act on the ground of existence of a prima facie case. 2. During the course of hearing, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner argued that no case of cheating is made out and at best a case of misappropriation could' be inferred against the Petitioner. But then for the aforesaid allegation of misappropriation, a civil dispute vide Dispute Case No. 148 of 1992-93 is pending adjudication before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Cuttack Circle, Cuttack and, therefore, for the self-same allegations, two parallel proceedings; one in civil forum and the other in criminal forum is not permissible under law. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further argued that prima facie the allegation is relating to misappropriation of some amount during the period of incumbency of the Petitioner from 1977 to September, 1990, while the Petitioner was the Secretary of Harianta Service Co-operative Societies Ltd., therefore in accordance with provision u/s 212, Code of Criminal Procedure, charge cannot be consolidated framed for the allegation of misappropriation/cheating for the entire period. He further stated that apart from that taking of cognizance of the offence being barred by limitation in accordance with Section 468, Code of Criminal Procedure learned J.M.F.C. should not have framed charge against the Petitioner in the impugned manner. 3. None appeared for the opp. party. 4. It appears from the impugned order, that aforesaid contentions were not raised in the Court of J.M.F.C. at the stage of framing of charge. It is the settled position of law that framing of charge is no a hollow formality. At that stage accused should be given an opportunity to place his contentions and the Magistrate is required to consider its relevancy and the merit as well while passing appropriate order relating to charge. It is not appearing from the impugned order that Petitioner was heard in the matter while considering the question of framing of charge. 5. At that stage accused should be given an opportunity to place his contentions and the Magistrate is required to consider its relevancy and the merit as well while passing appropriate order relating to charge. It is not appearing from the impugned order that Petitioner was heard in the matter while considering the question of framing of charge. 5. In view of that, the impugned order is set aside and learned J.M.F.C. (Rural); Cuttack is directed to hear both the parties and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. At that time, if the Petitioner will raise the aforesaid points that shall be duly considered. Since the aforesaid contentions involve both legal and factual aspects, in exercise of the power u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. in the given circumstances, this Court is not inclined to assess the facts when such matter was not examined in the first Court of facts Le. the Court of J.M.F.C. (Rural), Cuttack. Since the complaint case is of the year 1993 learned Magistrate is directed to hear and dispose of the matter relating to framing of charge within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of non-participation or co-operation of the Petitioner, learned Magistrate may dispose of the matter after perusal of evidence in record and in that event no further opportunity shall be afforded to the Petitioner in that matter. 6. Registry is directed to ensure receipt of a copy of this order by the J.M.F.C. (Rural), Cuttack within seven days hence. Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of accordingly.