JUDGMENT 1. - This Cr. Misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. has been filed on behalf of Om Prakash, assailing the order dated 25.6.2001 delivered by Addl. Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh in revision petition No. 10/2001, by which learned court below, by a detailed discussion, dismissed the revision petition filed by the accused, assailing the order of cognizance dated 13.2.2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Gharsana in Cr. case No. 100/01, by which cognizance under section 406 IPC has been taken. 2. Before admission, notices were issued to non-petitioners, resulting which Mr. H.S.S. Kharlia has appeared on behalf of non-petitioner No. 2 Pal Singh. I have heard at length learned counsel for the parties and have perused not only orders of both the courts below but also the record available on the file. 3. It is submitted that 25 bighas of agriculture land situated in Chak 10H belong to one Deena Nath, who was a Pong Dam oustee allottee by the Government of Rajasthan and has no power to dispose of the land for 20 years, however, as per averments, the above said Deena Nath entered into an agreement for sale of above land on 30.5.1996 by which he agreed to sale the above land for Rs. 2,50,000/- in favour of Om Prakash and Amar Singh. It is also averred that out of above amount, Rs. 1 Lacs through D.D. was paid by Om Prakash and remaining amount was paid through D.D. by Amar Singh. It is further averred that the aforestated Deena Nath further sold this land and refused to make refund of amount, resulting which an FIR No. 285/12.5.1995 in police station Gharsana was registered against Deena Nath by Amar Singh, in which a compromise was arrived at whereby said Deena Nath agreed to return the sale amount to both Om Prakash and Amar Singh. 4. It is further stated at Bar that above amount of Rs. 2,62,000/- was deposited with one Girdhari Lal, who was a Commission Agent at Gharsana, from whom the amount was to be taken in their respective shares by Om Prakash and Amar Singh. However, said Girdhari Lal refused to make payment of any amount because he has adjusted the amount so deposited against the outstanding amount against Om Prakash. 5. Both the parties lodged complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Gharsana under secs. However, said Girdhari Lal refused to make payment of any amount because he has adjusted the amount so deposited against the outstanding amount against Om Prakash. 5. Both the parties lodged complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Gharsana under secs. 406 and 420 IPC, which were sent to SHO, police station, Gharsana under section 156(3) Cr.PC. for registering FIR, resulting which on 4.7.2000, FIR No. 281/2000 was registered on the complaint of Pal Singh s/o Amar Singh and similarly, FIR No. 282/2000 was registered for the above offence on behalf of Om Prakash against Pal Singh & Amar Singh. The Investigating Officer submitted Final Report in both the FIRs as no criminal case according to him was made out and the matter was more or less, of civil nature; resulting which protest petitions were also filed in the court below by both the parties and statements under secs. 200 & 202 Cr.PC. were also recorded in FIR No. 281/2000, after which learned court below took cognizance against present petitioner. Against said order of cognizance, revision petition was filed in the court below, which was dismissed. Hence this petition under section 482 Cr.PC. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cognizance should not have been taken because the matter was more or less of civil nature and it was, prima facie, not proved before the court below that Rs. 2,50,000/- returned by Deena Nath were deposited with Girdhari Lal Commission Agent and even said Girdhari Lal has not been examined in the court below and, that while taking cognizance, the court below has committed miscarriage of justice because Om Prakash himself has paid his Rs. 1 Lac to Girdhari Lal but that amount was handed over by Girdhari Lal to Amar Singh alone. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Apex Court pronouncements in M/s. Kunstocom Electronics (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Gilt Pack Ltd. and anr., 2002 WLC (SC) Cri. 212 : 2002(1) Supreme 252 , State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa & anr., 2002 WLC (SC) Cri. 191 : 2002 (1) Supreme 192 and S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar & ors., 2002 WLC (SC) Cri. 74 : 2001 (8) Supreme 216 . 212 : 2002(1) Supreme 252 , State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa & anr., 2002 WLC (SC) Cri. 191 : 2002 (1) Supreme 192 and S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar & ors., 2002 WLC (SC) Cri. 74 : 2001 (8) Supreme 216 . On the contrary, learned counsel for the non-petitioner has supported the impugned order, stating that learned trial court has taken cognizance relying upon the evidence, ocular and documentary, available on the file and if at all any grievance there of the petitioner, that could be submitted before the trial court, who will decide the same after considering ocular and documentary evidence, if any, produced on behalf of the present petitioner. 8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the pronouncements referred above, which were not identical to the matter at hand, however, the principles enunciated therein are fully applicable to the matter at hand. 9. Whether Amar Singh alone received back the money from Deena Nath is version of the petitioner herein and that can be decided only when any evidence, ocular or documentary, is produced by him before the trial court. Cognizance is to be taken on the basis of complaint or FIR, also supported by the complainant and his witnesses, whether recorded under section 161 Cr.PC. or under secs. 200 & 202 Cr.PC. In the matter at hand, though SHO concerned submitted Final Report of "no case made out", however, upon protest petitions, the trial court recorded statements of Pal Singh-complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C and of his witnesses Sukhdeo Singh, Jamu Ram, Buta Sigh, Fauja and Amar Singh s/o Mangal Singh under section 202 Cr.P.C. and relying upon their testimony, learned trial court came to conclusion that, prima facie, ingredients of offence under section 406 IPC are made out. 10. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has argued extensively that the matter is of civil nature, as arrived at by the Investigating Officer, however, upon the averments made in the complaint as also upon evidence adduced on behalf of Pal Singh and his 5 witnesses, learned court below has came to conclusion that, prima facie, offence under section 406 IPC is made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not indicate which of the ingredients of offence under section 406 IPC is missing in the complaint or in the statement appended thereto. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not indicate which of the ingredients of offence under section 406 IPC is missing in the complaint or in the statement appended thereto. 11. I have also ventured to go through the complaint and statements under secs. 200 & 202 Cr.PC. and found that all the ingredients of offence under section 406 IPC are made out. 12. It is settled legal principle that under section 482 Cr.PC., inherent powers of this Court should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in order to correct the patent illegalities or to avoid miscarriage of justice, truthfulness or otherwise of allegations can not be considered at this stage. Where perusal of evidence on record shows that there were sufficient grounds that offence alleged has been committed, the proceedings can not be quashed. 13. In the matter at hand, I do not find sufficient reasons for intervention under section 482 Cr.PC. Consequently, without expressing anything on merits of the case, this petition under section 482 Cr.PC. is dismissed, with direction to court below to expedite the matter. 14. The trial court by order dated 13.2.2001 has issued arrest warrants. Looking to nature of offence and circumstances mentioned above, instead of arrest warrant, the petitioner herein shall be summoned through bailable warrant of Rs. 10000/-.Petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. Dismissed. *******