JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 30.5.2000 passed in Complaint Case No. 520 C of 2000, Trial No. 1188 of 2000 by Sri R.K. Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Motihari. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party No. 2, who according to Shri Md. Anis Akhtar, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2, is now no more, had filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No. 520 C of 2000 alleging therein that petitioner No. 1 Haribansh Tiwary had sold the land of the complainants share to petitioner No. 2 Ragubir Ram and petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 were witnesses to the said deed. On aforesaid allegation, complaint petition was filed and after completing enquiry, the learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, took cognizance of offence under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioners approached this Court, by filing the present petition, which was admitted on 7.10.2002. While admitting, this Court directed that during the pendency of this application, further proceedings in Complaint Case No. 520 (c) of 2000, Tr. No. 1188 of 2000 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, shall remain stayed and order of stay is still continuing. 4. Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging the order of cognizance, submits that the allegation made in the complaint petition was purely civil in nature. It was submitted that regarding the land, which was referred to in the complaint petition, civil litigation was pending before the competent court and as such on this ground alone, the order of cognizance is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned Counsel, who had filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No. 2, has intimated the court that during the pendency of this petition, the complainant has already died. 6. 5. Learned Counsel, who had filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No. 2, has intimated the court that during the pendency of this petition, the complainant has already died. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no purpose will be served by allowing proceeding in Complaint Case No. 520 C of 2000 to further proceed and as such for the ends of justice, it is necessary to interfere with the order of cognizance and, accordingly, order of cognizance dated 30.5.2000 passed by Sri R.K. Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, Motihari in Tr. No. 1188 of 2000 arising out of Complaint Case No. 520 C of 2000 is hereby set aside and petition stands allowed.