JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar and j. JJ. 1. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has challenged the order dated 6.8.1998 passed by Shri A. K. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No.1004c of 1998. By the said order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code 2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No.1004c of 1998 disclosing therein that he had given Rs.30523/- (rupees thirty thousand five hundred twenty three only) to the petitioner, who was Secretary of Siwan Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti, Patna for purchase of a piece of land from the said Society. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that after getting the money, the petitioner executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant only on paper. The complainant never got possession of any piece of land. The complainant was cheated by the petitioner. After filing the complaint petition, the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation. Enquiry witness was examined in support of the complainant case. After being satisfied with the materials available on the record, the learned Magistrate by order dated 6.8.1998 took cognizance of the offences under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of processes for securing the attendance of the accused person. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this court by filing the present petition. This petition was admitted on 6.1.2000 and while admitting the case, this court had directed that pending disposal of this application, further proceeding in Compliant Case No.1004c of 1998 pending in the court of Shri A. K. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Patna shall remain stayed. 4. Mr. Naresh Dixit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that it was purely a dispute of civil nature and the criminal proceeding cannot be allowed to be used by the complainant. He, while referring to annexure-2 to the petition, submits that the complainant had taken possession of the land in question and, as such, the present petition was filed incorrectly. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that for civil dispute criminal proceeding cannot be allowed to proceed. The present dispute is purely a civil dispute and, as such, order of cognizance may be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that for civil dispute criminal proceeding cannot be allowed to proceed. The present dispute is purely a civil dispute and, as such, order of cognizance may be quashed. 5. Mr. SUNIL Kumar Pandey, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He, while referring to paragraph-5 of annexure-1, submits that it is not the isolated criminal case against this petitioner rather similar allegation was also made in other cases against the petitioner. This shows that the petitioner was habitual offender of such offences. He further submits that perusal of the complaint petition categorically discloses commission of offences and the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the offences. He also submits that at this initial stage particularly in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case this court may refrain from interfering with the order of the learned Magistrate. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also examined the materials available on the record. So far as plea of learned counsel for the petitioner that the present case is purely a civil dispute is concerned, I am of the view that contradictory stand has been taken in the complaint petition. There is specific assertion of cheating and commission of other offences in the complaint petition. The complaint petition also indicates that for the same accusation the petitioner was made accused in a number of cases. However, at this stage, it would not be appropriate for this court to record a definite finding. The matter may be looked into by the court concerned where the case is pending. 7. In the result, I do not find any merit in this case. The petition is rejected. 8. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 6.1.2000 stands automatically vacated. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. 9. In this case lower court records were called for and the same were received and are lying with the records of the present case. The office is directed to remit back the lower court records to the court below forthwith.