Order In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 23rd May, 2006, whereby learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In the complaint made against the petitioners, it has been stated, inter alia, that the land of Khata No. 219, Plot Nos. 925, 901, 902, area 90 decimals was purchased by Smt. Prabhawati Devi-mother of the Opposite Party No.2, by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 15th September, 1973 from the vendors-Basudeo Prasad Sahu, Sitaram Sao and Jagdish Sao and, thereafter, she had come in possession of the said land. The rent in respect of the said land was also being paid by the complainant. It has been further stated that the land originally belongs to one Mallu Rajwar, who had sold the same by registered deed to Budhan Bhuiyan. After the death of Budhan Bhuiyan, his widow Vijia Bhuini sold the land to Bharat Sah and, thereafter, the heirs of Bharat Sah sold the same to the Opposite Party No.2. The petitioners knowing fully well that Mallu Rajwar had already sold the land and he has no surviving interest therein got the sale deed registered in favour of Santosh Kumar Yadav-Accused No.9, in respect of Plot Nos. 901 and 902 for an area of 44 decimals with the connivance of Baleshwar Rajvanshi and Ravikant Prasad (Petitioner Nos. 7 and 8 respectively) and have committed the said offences by getting the sale deed registered in favour of Petitioner No.9. 3. Learned Court below on the basis of the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statements of other witnesses as also other materials on record took cognizance of the offences under the said Sections of the Indian Penal Code having found sufficient material to proceed against the accused/petitioners. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 claim to be the persons who have inherited the land. Such claim of the complainant gives rise to a cause of action for a civil action and the criminal proceeding is unwarranted and is abuse of the process of the Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 claim to be the persons who have inherited the land. Such claim of the complainant gives rise to a cause of action for a civil action and the criminal proceeding is unwarranted and is abuse of the process of the Court. Learned Court below without appreciating the same has erroneously taken cognizance of the offences under the said penal Sections against the petitioners. The said order as also the entire criminal proceeding are bad in law and unsustainable. 5. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, submitted that though the petitioners have taken the defence by claiming their right title over the land in question. Learned Magistrate on basis of the materials on record has found prima facie case for taking cognizance of the said offences against the petitioners. The petitioners' claim of title is disputed and the same is a matter of adjudication by the Trial Court. The criminal proceeding cannot be quashed on such ground in exercise of inherent power of this Court. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and materials appearing on record and submissions of learned counsel, I find that the grounds taken by the petitioners are factual in nature and the order taking cognizance cannot be quashed on the ground of such tangled facts which are to be proved in course of the trial. 7. Learned court below has found sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners and passed the impugned order. No cogent ground has been made out in this petition for quashing the order taking cognizance and the criminal proceeding against the petitioners. I find no merit in this petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.