JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 9th July, 1999 passed by Sri RL. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Arrah in Complaint Case No. 1020(C) of 1998/Tr. No. 548 of 1999. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken of cognizance of offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that the complainant in his complaint petition alleged that this petitioner cheated the complainant and he got signature of the complainant on stamp paper as well on persuasion of this petitioner the complainant went to the Registry Office and he signed over the paper. It was alleged that this petitioner had falsely told the complainant that he will take step for getting loan for construction of a house under the scheme of "Indira Awas" in favour of the complainant. It was alleged that subsequently the complainant came to know that the petitioner had got signature of the complainant on the sale deed of the land of the complainant in favour of the mother of the petitioner and on that basis the complaint petition was filed. 3. Sri Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging the order of cognizance as well as entire proceedings, submits that the complainant himself had gone to the Registry Office and before the Registrar he executed the deed and once the deed was executed before the Registrar, the complainant was not required to allege that he was cheated by the petitioner for executing the sale deed. It was further submitted that despite the fact that the sale deed was executed in favour of the mother of the petitioner, the complainant never delivered the possession of the said property to either mother of the petitioner or in favour of the petitioner and subsequently, the complainant executed cancellation deed with respect to the deed executed in favour of the petitioner and thereafter the land in question was sold to one Dhrub Singh. It was further submitted that the complainant had not alleged regarding commission of any offence for preparing forged document and, as such, in the complaint petition offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code was not even incorporated and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence only under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It was argued that on the basis of contents of complaint petition as well as materials available on record, Section 420 is not made out. Accordingly, it has been prayed to quash the order of cognizance and entire subsequent proceedings. 4. In this case, Opp. Party No. 2 has entered his appearance through advocate but at the time of hearing none has appeared on behalf of Opp. Party No. 2. However, Sri Uday Chand Prasad learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State is present and has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 5. After going through the complaint petition and the materials available on record, the Court is of the view that once the complainant had executed the sale deed at the time registry, it was not required on his part to initiate a criminal proceeding on an allegation that he was falsely persuaded to execute the deed. Moreover, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the possession of the land in question was never given either to the petitioner or to his mother and subsequent the complainant had already transferred the land to another person. The complainant, as has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has subsequently executed a deed for cancellation of earlier deed. Moreover, in this case, order of cognizance was stayed by this Court on 13.3.2000 and the matter remained pending till date. Accordingly, it would not be proper to direct the petitioner to participate in a proceeding, which was initially initiated in the year 1998. Of course, while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is not required to interfere with the order of cognizance due to the reasons that there are other remedies in the Code of Criminal Procedure, but in view of the special facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court is inclined to exercise inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 9.7.1999 passed in Complaint Case No. 1020(C) of 1998/Tr. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 9.7.1999 passed in Complaint Case No. 1020(C) of 1998/Tr. No. 548 of 1999 and all subsequent proceedings thereof are hereby quashed and the petition stands allowed.