K. RAMANNA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 4-8-2002 passed by the VI Addl. C. M. M. , Bangalore, in C. C. No. 6779/2000 (P. C. R. No. 453/99) mainly on the ground that the private complaint filed by respondent-1 nearly 11 years from the date of alleged agreement which is beyond period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act. The allegation set out in the complaint do not constitute any offence. The entire dispute sought to be raised by the complainant is based on an alleged agreement of sale dated 25-12-1998. In fact the revision petitioner has denied the alleged agreement of sale executed by him in favour of the complainant and he suitably replied to the legal notice issued to him by the complainant and further that the trial Court without applying its mind took the cognizance of the case and issued process. There is no consistency in the statement recorded by the trial Court. Even the police report discloses that no prima facie case has been made out against the accused-2 to 4. Despite the same the magistrate passed an order and issued the process against accused 1 and 4. Apart from filing the complaint respondent 1 - complainant sent a representation to the bank where the revision petitioner is working with a request to take appropriate action against him. Therefore, the order under revision passed by the trial is to be set aside. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of this case are that respondent 1 filed a private complaint i. e. , p. C. R. No. 453/99 on 17-5-1999 against this revision petitioner and four others for the offences punishable under Section 196, 209, 386, 403, 406 and 420 IPC on the allegations that this revision petitioner executed "khareedi Sanchakara Patra" (agreement of sale) in respect of house No. 120, situated at MIG Colony, K. H. B. Colony, Agrahara dasarahalli, Bangalore, agreeing to sell the same for a total consideration of rs. 2,50,000/ -. The said agreement was executed by the revision petitioner after receiving the part sale consideration of rs. 1,25,000/- in favour of one Smt. Renukamma wife of respondent-1 - complainant. The second accused being the father of the revision petitioner accused-1 was a member of Karnataka Housing board who negotiated the transactions among the parties. 2,50,000/ -. The said agreement was executed by the revision petitioner after receiving the part sale consideration of rs. 1,25,000/- in favour of one Smt. Renukamma wife of respondent-1 - complainant. The second accused being the father of the revision petitioner accused-1 was a member of Karnataka Housing board who negotiated the transactions among the parties. In spite of several requests made by respondent 1 - Complainant that the revision petitioner failed to register the execution of the sale deed in respect of the house in favour of the respondent 1 - complainant, but the revision petitioner sold and executed a registered sale deed in favour of 4th respondent i. e. , Smt. Devayani for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs even though he has agreed to receive the balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- from the respondent- 1 complainant. It is further case of the respondent - complainant that he got the premises for rent to the 4th accused through a friend Sri Nadgir. ( 3 ) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents. 3a. The allegations made in the complaint is that this revision petitioner entered into an agreement of sale on 25-12-1988 but the revision petitioner said to have sold the said house in favour of Uma Belagavi on 25-12-1995. The respondent complainant got issued a legal notice dated 11-7-1996. Accordingly, the revision petitioner sent a reply on 18-7-1997 which was served on Respondent 1 on 23-7-1996 wherein he has completely denied about the alleged agreement of sale dated 25-12-1995 in favour of respondent-1. But the complaint was filed on 17-5-1999 after a lapse of 111/2 years, therefore the very private complaint filed by respondent-1 is not at all maintainable and the learned Magistrate has not applied his judicious mind while taking cognizance against this revision petitioner. In fact the charge sheet came to be filed against the revision petitioner but the Magistrate issued process against all the accused. Further it is submitted that the alleged agreement of sale executed by him in favour of one renukamma, wife of respondent-1 therefore the complaint filed by the respondent-1 is not at all maintainable. It is further submitted that she has not at all executed any power of attorney to file a complaint on her behalf against this revision petitioner. Further it is submitted that the alleged agreement of sale executed by him in favour of one renukamma, wife of respondent-1 therefore the complaint filed by the respondent-1 is not at all maintainable. It is further submitted that she has not at all executed any power of attorney to file a complaint on her behalf against this revision petitioner. Further it is submitted that no such pleadings in the complaint that the revision petitioner induced respondent 1 and his wife to enter into an agreement of sale by paying rs. 1,25,000/ -. There is no dishonest intention in the alleged execution of agreement of sale. The remedy, if any, available for respondent-1 is to approach the civil Court. Further it is submitted that the respondent has come up with this false complaint. There is not averments made by respondent-1 that the revision petitioner had any fraudulent intention to cheat him. Therefore the allegations made by the complainant does not disclose the ingredients of Section 415 of cr. P. C. and the cognizance taken by the magistrate is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has relied on following decisions they are; (A) In the case Hridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma v. State of Bihar, 2000 (3) Supreme 131 ( AIR 2000 SC 2341 : 2000 Cri LJ 298) wherein the Apex Court held that. (Paras 17 and 16) "ingredients of intentional deception on part of accused at beginning of negotiations for transaction neither been expressly stated nor indirectly suggested in complaint-Offence of cheating not made out-FIR quashed. " further the supreme court held that: "to hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. " (B) In the case of Rajendra Kumar sitaram Pande v. Uttam, ILR (1999) Kant 2715 : ( AIR 1999 SC 1028 : 1999 Cri LJ 1620) wherein the Supreme Court has held that : (Para 7 of AIR, Cri LJ)". . . . . . . . . . . . . By perusing the allegations made in the complaint petition, we are also satisfied that no case of defamation has been made out. . . . . . . . . . . . . By perusing the allegations made in the complaint petition, we are also satisfied that no case of defamation has been made out. In view of the matter, requiring the accused persons to face trial or even to approach the Magistrate afresh for reconsideration of the question of issuance of process would not toe in the interest of Justice. On the other hand in our considered opinion this is a fit case for quashing the order of issuance of process and the proceedings itself. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and confirm the order of the learned Sessions Judge and quash the criminal proceedings itself. " (C) In another decision reported in the case of Mohammad Atullah v. Ram Saran mahto, AIR 1981 SC 1155 : (1981 Cri LJ 616) wherein the Supreme Court has held that:". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Obviously the learned chief Judicial Magistrate, without any reference to any further material, took cognizance of the case and ordered the issue of process to the accused merely on the basis of the opinion expressed by the Executive officer, Samastipur Municipality, That he was not right in doing. " (D) In another decision the Supreme court in the case of Kunstocom electronics (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Gilt Pack Ltd. 2002 (1) Supreme 252 : ( AIR 2002 SC 739 : 2002 Cri LJ 1012), wherein the Apex court has held that : (Para 8 of AIR, Cri LJ)". . . . . . . . . THERE is no hard and fast rule that the objection as to cognizability of offence and maintainability of the complaint should be allowed to be raised only at the time of framing the charge. . . . . . . . . . . . Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process need not necessarily wait till the stage of framing the charge. " (E) In the case of Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra AIR 1968 SC 117 : (1968 Cri lj 97, Para 14) wherein the Apex Court has held that:". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process need not necessarily wait till the stage of framing the charge. " (E) In the case of Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra AIR 1968 SC 117 : (1968 Cri lj 97, Para 14) wherein the Apex Court has held that:". . . . . . . . The use of the words 'may take cognizance of any offence', in sub-section (1) of Section 19, in our opinion, imports the exercise of a Judicial discretion, and the magistrate, who receives the report, under section 173, will have to consider the said report and judicially take a decision, whether or not to take cognizance of the offence. From this it follows, that it is not as if, that the Magistrate is bound to accept the opinion of the police that there is a case for placing the accused, on trial. It is open to the magistrate to take the view that the facts, disclosed in the report do not make out an offence for taking cognizance or he may take the view that there is no sufficient evidence to justify an accused being put on trial. On either of these grounds, the Magistrate will be perfectly justified in declining to take cognizance of an offence, irrespective of the opinion of the police. " ( 4 ) PER contra Mr. Jadhav, learned advocate for respondent-1 submitted that the offence alleged under Section 420 IPC, the respondent had filed a complaint within three years, therefore the provision of Section 468 Cr. P. C. are to be invoked even after the expiry of the lease period that the purchaser of the property can invoke Section 420 IPC if the seller intentionally played fraud in not executing the sale deed in favour of the purchaser but executed the sale deed in favour of the wife of 4th respondent, which is illegal and incorrect. The provisions of Limitation Act is not applicable for filing of a private complaint against an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. Anybody can set the law in motion. In fact respondent-1 is none other than the husband of Smt. Renukamma in whose favour the revision petitioner executed the agreement of sale and also received part sale consideration. ( 5 ) FURTHER it is submitted by Mr. Anybody can set the law in motion. In fact respondent-1 is none other than the husband of Smt. Renukamma in whose favour the revision petitioner executed the agreement of sale and also received part sale consideration. ( 5 ) FURTHER it is submitted by Mr. Jadhav, counsel for the respondent that the complaint can be filed by any person and the magistrate need not assign any reason to take cognizance of the case and issue process when the Magistrate states that he has perused the complaint or the charge, which itself is sufficient to proceed against the accused persons. In fact the private complaint has been filed by respondent-1 which came to be referred under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. to the police concerned for Investigation and to submit report. Accordingly the jurisdictional police investigated the case and submitted the charge against this revision petitioner only. Therefore, issue of process against this revision petitioner after perusing the allegations made in the complaint is correct. Further it is maintained that the revision petitioner can avail the provisions of Section 239, Cr. P. C. during the pendency of the trial. Therefore, the order under revision does not call for any interference. In support of his contention the learned counsel for respondent-1 relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa konjalgl, AIR 1976 SC 1947 : (1976 Cri LJ 1533), wherein the Supreme Court has held that: (Para 2)"at the stage of issuing process the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case nor can the High Court go into this matter in its revisional jurisdiction which is a very limited one. " ( 6 ) THE Advocate who is appearing for other respondents adopts the arguments advanced on behalf of respondent-1. ( 7 ) HAVING heard the arguments of both parties the point that arises for my consideration and decision is: (A) Whether the order under revision passed by the trial court in issuing the process against this revision petitioner is perverse, illegal or incorrect? ( 7 ) HAVING heard the arguments of both parties the point that arises for my consideration and decision is: (A) Whether the order under revision passed by the trial court in issuing the process against this revision petitioner is perverse, illegal or incorrect? (B) If so, whether it calls for interference?7a. According to the revision petitioner he has not executed any agreement of sale dated 25-12-1988 in favour of Smt. Renukamma, wife of Respondent-1. It is clear from the material placed on record namely copy of "khareedi sanchakara patra" for house premises bearing No. 120, MIG II stage, KHB Colony, Dasarahalli Agrahara, bangalore, has been executed by this revision petitioner and respondent 1 on 25-12-1988 much prior to the expiry of lease period. The averment made in the complaint discloses that the revision petitioner agreed to sell the said house for a total sale consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- and he has received a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- towards part of sale consideration and executed the said agreement of sale. But after some time the revision petitioner had sold the said property in favour of one Smt. Devayani, wife of accused No. 4. The revision petitioner and another accused induced the complainant and his wife to enter into an agreement of sale and received a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/ -. Of course the revision petitioner issued a reply notice dated 16-7-1996 to the advocate for respondent 1 and respondent 1, who is none other than the husband of Smt. Renukamma who filed a private complaint within three years from the date of exchange of notice. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint is barred by limitation does not hold water and the same cannot be accepted. The provisions of Limitation Act is not applicable to the cases filed against accused persons for the offence punishable under section 420, IPC. ( 8 ) AFTER receiving the complaint the Magistrate referred the same to Kamakshipalya police station for investigation and to submit report under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. Accordingly, PSI investigated the case and submitted charge sheet against this revision petitioner and accused-2 to 4 were not sent up for trial. The copy of the statements of witnesses recorded by the police discloses that a prima facie case has been made out by respondent-1 to proceed against this revision petitioner under Section 420, IPC. P. C. Accordingly, PSI investigated the case and submitted charge sheet against this revision petitioner and accused-2 to 4 were not sent up for trial. The copy of the statements of witnesses recorded by the police discloses that a prima facie case has been made out by respondent-1 to proceed against this revision petitioner under Section 420, IPC. It is alleged that this revision petitioner has executed sale agreement in favour of devayani, wife of respondent-4. That itself prima facie constitute an offence punishable 'under Section 420, IPC. The Magistrate need not give reasons for taking cognizance. After receipt of final report the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against the revision petitioner and directed issuance of summons to him. But the order dated 4-8-2000 discloses that the Magistrate directed the office to register the case and issue summons to accused. But the charge sheet discloses that P. S. I. , Kamakshipalya filed a challan against revision petitioner only. It seems that the office committed a mistake in issuing summons to A1 to A4 though the charge sheet came to be filed against Al only. If A-2 to A-4 have not challenged the order dated 4-8-2000 passed by the Magistrate on their behalf, but now the revision petitioner cannot contend that the issuance of summons against accused-2 to 4 is illegal and incorrect. The aggrieved persons are the proper persons to challenge the same. In fact this revision petitioner impleaded accused 2 to 4 as respondents 2 to 4. This court on several occasions held that if the magistrate after receiving the complaint written the words "perused the records" in the order xxxxxxxxxxx that means he has applied his judicious mind in taking cognizance against the accused persons. Therefore revision petitioner has been arrayed as accused-1 executed the agreement of sale can approach the Magistrate with a prayer to discharge him from the case at any stage of the proceedings. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, viewed from any angle I do not find any good reasons to interfere with the impugned order under revision. Hence the revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .