Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By both the criminal misc. petitions under Section 482, CrPC, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 15.01.2004 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali (for the the trial Court hereinafter) whereby the trial Court took the cognizance of the offence under Section 420, IPC against petitioner Surajmal (for short the accused hereinafter) who is non-petitioner in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 963/2004 and issued the process. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner Satya Prakash is the complainant (for short the complainant hereinafter) who alleged to have purchased the land bearing Khasra No. 128 in Village Manpura by a registered sale-deed from Suraj Mal. 4. The trial Court prima facie came to the conclusion that the executa t of registered sale accused Surajmal sold the land to the complainant for a valuable consideratio and document sale was got registered with the Sub-Registrar, Pali in the name of Saty Prakash Complainant. This has been prima facie established from the statement of complainant Saty Prakash and two witnesses who were attesting witnesses to the registered sale-dee namely Babulal and Kalyanmal as also prima facie there is evidence before the trial Court of the Forensic Science Laboratory and the Handwriting Expert who opined that the signature on the sale-deed as also the admitted signature of accused Surajmal are by one and same person and similar. Accuse Surajmal has also challenged the order taking cognizance. 5. From the order impugned, in my view, by a detailed and well reasoned order, the trial Court took the cognizance of the offence. I find no error in the order taking cognizance. 6. So far as the petition filed by complainant Satya Prakash is concerned, the trial Court held that it is the State who is the aggrieved party and not the complainant for the reason that after having sold the land, accused Surajmal got the land registered in favour of complainant Satya Prakash and thereafter it appears that the very land, in land acquisition proceedings, was acquired and accused knowing well that he has already sold the land to the complainant and transferred the ownership/title, yet received the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act for the very land. The trial Court held that if at all any person is cheated then it is the State by accused Surajmal being not the owner of the land has taken the compensation. 7. The trial Court held that if at all any person is cheated then it is the State by accused Surajmal being not the owner of the land has taken the compensation. 7. In my view not only the State, but complainant Satya Prakash is equally the person aggrieved because the land has been sold by accused Surajmal in his favour by a registered sale-deed for a valuable consideration and subsequently the land been acquired. If the possession of the land is taken at the instance of accused Surajmal then definitely complainant Satya Prakash is also aggrieved as he would be deprived of the land without paying the compensation to him. 8. Consequently, the Criminal Petition No. 963/2004 filed by complainant Satya Prakash is partly allowed and it is held that apart from the State, the complainant Satya Prakash is also an aggrieved person to the act of accused Surajmal. The petition filed by accused Surajmal being S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 707/2004 challenging the order taking cognizance has no merit and accordingly it is dismissed.