JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up for consideration of stay petition, however, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter has bee finally heard. 2. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has declined to accept the final report, has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. and ordered the accuseds to be summoned by arrest warrant. 3. Vide order dated 25.10.1996, while admitting this 482 petition, further proceedings in the learned trial court were ordered to be stayed till next date of hearing. The record of the learned trial court was requisitioned. A perusal of the record of the learned trial court shows that on 26.10.1996 a copy of order of this Court dated 25.10.1996 was produced, whereupon the learned trial court ordered the arrest warrant to be recalled after recording attendance of the counsel for the accuseds. Thus the petitioners have entered appearance before the learned trial court. 4. The prosecution case precisely is that on 7.11.1991 an agreement to sale was executed in favour of the complainant with respect to plot in question for a paid price of Rs. 25,000/- but subsequently, the sale deed was not executed and it transpired that the plot in question was a property of custodian and was taken into possession by the Tehsildar. The F.R. has been submitted mainly on the ground that it was found that the plot was not attached nor it was taken into possession by the Tehsildar and that a Sanad with respect to this plot has been granted in favour of non petitioner No. 3. Prem Chand and a sale deed for the plot has already been executed and registered in favour of the complainant. 5. A perusal of these documents shows that the agreement is said to be dated 7.11.1991 while the Sanad is said to have been issued on 8.9.94 and the sale deed has been executed on 29.9.94 while the Power of Attorney in favour of the accused No. 1 is dated 16.7.91. The question in these circumstances is as to whether on the date when the agreement was executed, the offence was committed or not. The question in these circumstances is as to whether on the date when the agreement was executed, the offence was committed or not. I do not propose to say anything on merits as to whether the offence is made out or not, whether in view of the recitals of the agreement or in view of the recitals in the Power of Attorney, as this question is to be gone into by the learned trial court. However, in the totality of circumstances of this case, it cannot be said the learned trial court was in error in taking cognizance against the petitioner as done by the impugned order. 6. In this view of the matter, I do not find any force in the present 482 petition, the same is therefore, dismissed. 7. Since the accused have already entered appearance before the learned trial court, they may move application for bail pending trial. If such bail application is moved, the learned trial court shall decide the same on merits objectively and in accordance with law.Petition dismissed with direction to the petitioner to seek bail. *******