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 23.5.2000 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura in Complaint Case No. 25 (C) of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Section 467, 468, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that Opp. Party No. 2, namely, Janardan Prasad Singh filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No. 25 (C) of 2000 in the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 474, 323, 504, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the complaint petition, the complainant disclosed that on 12.11.1998, he came to know that petitioner No. 1, Munna Devi had transferred the land of petitioners pertaining to Plot No. 55 measuring an area of 9 ½ decimals, Plot No. 56 measuring an area of 7 ¼ decimals in favour of petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 through a registered sale deed. It was further alleged that the a sale deed was illegally executed in respect of Plot No. 42 measuring an area of 13 1/3 decimals of land by accused Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 in favour of accused No. 2 (petitioner No. 2). The complainant subsequently obtained copy of the sale deeds and thereafter tried to persuade the petitioners, for which Panchayati was also held. It has further been disclosed in the complaint petition that the complainant had informed the village Panchayat that petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 were trying to unauthorizedly take possession over the land in question. The complainant also lodged an F.I.R. against accused persons and thereafter the complainant was given assurance that they would follow the suggestion of Panchayati, but one way or the other they deferred the matter. It was further disclosed that on 30.1.2000 while the complainant was getting agricultural work done over his land, pertaining to Plot No. 56, petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 came over the land and threatened the complainant and thereafter scuffle took place. In the said occurrence, the complainant was assaulted and it was alleged that petitioner No. 4 forcibly snatched wrist watch of the complainant, which was for an amount of Rs. 500/-. 2, 3 and 4 came over the land and threatened the complainant and thereafter scuffle took place. In the said occurrence, the complainant was assaulted and it was alleged that petitioner No. 4 forcibly snatched wrist watch of the complainant, which was for an amount of Rs. 500/-. It was further alleged that the complainant went to Sheikhopur Police Station and submitted a written report. However, on 2.2.2000, when he visited to the court, he came to know that the police officer had not registered any case and, as such, on the same day i.e. on 2.2.2000 the complaint petition vide Complaint Case No. 25 (C) of 2000 was filed. After conducting enquiry, by an order dated 23.5.2000, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura took cognizance of the offences under Sections 467, 468, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners and directed for issuance of summons. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. On 4.7.2000 while issuing notice to Opp. Party No. 2, this Court had directed that until further orders, proceedings in the court below shall remain stayed. After appearance of Opp. Party No. 2, the matter was heard and by order dated 18.7.2001, this petition was admitted for hearing. While admitting, this Court had directed that during the pendency of this application, interim order dated 4.7.2000 will continue. The order of stay is still continuing. 4. Despite Vakalatnama was filed on behalf Opp. Party No. 2, at the time of hearing, none appeared on his behalf. 5. While challenging the order of cognizance, Sri Basant Kumar Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has emphatically argued that the order of cognizance and entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 25 (C) of 2000 is liable to be set aside solely on the ground that the proceeding was initiated maliciously and with oblique motive with a view to dissuade the petitioners, who claimed their right, title and possession over the land in question. It was submitted that a suit, vide Title Suit No. 75 of 1975 was filed in the Court of Sub Judge, Munger in respect of several plots including the plots in dispute in the present case. The suit was decreed in the year 1987 and preliminary decree was also prepared. It was submitted that a suit, vide Title Suit No. 75 of 1975 was filed in the Court of Sub Judge, Munger in respect of several plots including the plots in dispute in the present case. The suit was decreed in the year 1987 and preliminary decree was also prepared. After the final decree was prepared, petitioner No. 1, Munna Devi had initiated a execution proceeding vide Execution Case No. 1 of 1996 and as per the order of executing court, the Nazir of Civil Court, Sheikhpura has already executed the delivery of possession over the land in question in favour of the petitioners on 22.6.1997 and 23.6.1997, which was subsequently confirmed by the executing court by order dated 28.8.1997, 1.5.1998 and 22.5.1998. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has referred to Annexures 3, 3/1, 4 and 5 to the petitioner, which are Judgment, Preliminary decree and final decree and order passed by the executing court respectively. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that an appeal vide F.A. No. 78 of 1988 was preferred against the Judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 75 of 1975 by the Judgment debtor and the same was dismissed for default and even the restoration petition too was rejected and the Judgment and decree attained its finality. It was submitted that while the suit was pending, to the reasons best known to the defendant Sunayana Devi, she transferred some suit land to the complainant Opp. Party No. 2 unauthorisedly, who illegally started to raise dispute claiming his right and title over the land in question. Since Opp. Party No. 2 failed to get any relief from the competent court of civil jurisdiction, with a view to put pressure on the petitioners, he had filed the present complaint petition and in complaint petition, he had falsely claimed that on the date of occurrence, he was doing cultivation work over the land in question and thereafter occurrence of assault and theft of wrist watch of the complainant had taken place. It was submitted that on the basis of materials available on record, the case appears to be palpably false and same has been filed maliciously and on this ground, the order of cognizance and entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 25(C) of 2000 is liable to be set aside. 6. In absence of Opp. Party No. 2, Smt. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, learned Addl. 6. In absence of Opp. Party No. 2, Smt. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. 7. Besides hearing learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State, I have also perused the materials available on the record. The record shows that the civil proceeding was initiated even for the land in question and suit was decreed and, as such, the Court is satisfied that one way or the other, Opp. Party No. 2 was illegally claiming right and possession over the land in question. In such situation, the fact reveals that the proceeding was initiated not fairly and honestly, but with some oblique motive and with a view to exaggerate the case, the story of minor assault and snatching of wrist watch of Opp. Party No. 2 was introduced by the complainant. Moreover, in this case complaint petition was filed in the year 2000. Since 2000 itself, the matter remained pending before this Court without any progress in the criminal proceeding due to the reason that there was an order of stay passed by this Court. In the present situation, the Court feels that it would not be appropriate to direct the petitioners to participate in the proceeding before the court below for a dispute or allegation, which can be thoroughly examined and adjudicated by a court of civil jurisdiction. The Court is of the opinion that besides the dispute of civil in nature, the prosecution appears to be malicious and, accordingly, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, order of cognizance dated 23.5.2000 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura in Complaint Case No. 25 (C) of 2000 is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed.