JUDGMENT 1. - Preferring instant petition under Section 482, Cr.PC., petitioners request quashing of cognizance and registration of case for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B, IPC as ordered by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 12.10.06. 2. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that in May, 06, complainant-the respondent No. 2 submitted a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, alleging that petitioners on 08.06.99 agreed and entered into a written agreement for selling 20 bighas land at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per bigha and received Rs. 2,00,000/- as advance-thereafter, on 15.04.02, receiving Rs. 50,000/-, extended period of agreement upto 13.04.05 in presence of named persons petitioners agreed that whenever Rs. 2,50,000/- shall be returned to complainant, they shall take back their this 20 bighas land-but possession was taken on 23.04.06, assuring payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- in two days, asserting that complainant was in possession upto 08.06.99 and always willing to comply agreement alleged he cheated in above way. Complaint forwarded to police station, Sadulshahar under Section 202, Cr.PC., for inquiry and for the stated reasons, cognizance is taken. 3. Assailing above order, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that (1) the case is purely of civil nature, based on written agreement. (2) At best, the agreement can be basis of civil litigation. (3) Agreement is dated 08.06.99 and cheating is said to be effected in the year 2002. Also argued that alleged writing to the effect that only when paid Rs. 2,50,000/-, possession shall be taken which complainant shall remove and petitioner shall take is written afterwards in the space just on the side of the endorsement of stamp vendor behind the stamp of agreement. On behalf of the petitioners, it is also argued that agreement is not admissible in any proceedings civil or criminal, because of insufficiency of stamps and other reasons. Argued that registering of such documents and such allegations is abuse of process of the Court. 4. On behalf of the petitioners, it is also argued that agreement is not admissible in any proceedings civil or criminal, because of insufficiency of stamps and other reasons. Argued that registering of such documents and such allegations is abuse of process of the Court. 4. In support of the contentions, reliance is placed on (i) (2005) 10 SCC 336 , Uma Shanker Gopalika v. State of Bihar & Another , (ii) 2001 Cr.L.R. (SC) 217, Alpic Finance Ltd. v. P. Sadasivan & Another , (iii) 2001 Cr.L.R. (SC) 751, S.W. Pakanitkar v. State of Bihar , (iv) 2006(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1732, Lalita Devi and Another v. State of Rajasthan & Another , (v) 2007(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 176, Dilip Kothari v. State of Rajasthan & Others , (vi) 2008 Cr.L.R. (SC) 574, Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State of Uttaranchal & Others , and order dated 02.03.07 in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 886/2005, Smt. Vidhya Devi & Others v. State of Rajasthan & Another . 5. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that transactions continued, so it is not a matter exclusively based on original agreement. Learned Magistrate, on convincing, has taken cognizance-in such petition, factual aspect is not to be probed, learned Public Prosecutor stated that the cognizance is rightly taken and the petitioners will have all the opportunities to put up their case and objections before the trial Court at the earliest stage of the proceedings. 6. Considered. The original agreement as per directions and order of 24.04.08, is made available for perusal (and returned to the respondent) photostat copy of which is on record. Agreement is that of 08.06.99 and description dated 15.04.02 extending time upto 13.04.05 also mentions signatures of four witnesses. Considering this aspect, the arguments advanced are based on facts which, at this stage, do not appear to be established or undisputed. In such petition, detailed or minute analysis or probing of the facts Is not warranted. 7. Accordingly, no case for entertaining this petition under Section 482, Cr.PC., is made out, so the petition is rejected. It is made clear that the above observations are only and exclusively in context of disposing of this case only.Petition Dismissed. *******