JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. Five 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 29.11.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. Jhanjharpur in G.R. No. 87 of 1998, Tr. No. 1193 of 2000, arising out of Madhepur (R.S. Siwir) P.S. Case No. 17 of 1998. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 467, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that Opp. Party No. 2 filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No. 12 of 1998 in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, which was referred to the police for its registration and investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, a case vide Jhanjharpur P.S. Case No. 17 of 1998 was registered for the offences under Sections 418, 420. 467 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the complaint petition that petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 though were having only one dhur of land in a particular plot, he executed a sale-deed in favour of petitioner No. 2 in excess of the land, which was not in their title and possession. It was alleged that accused persons had prepared the said sale-deed only with a view to illegally usurp the land of complainant. It was further alleged in the complaint petition that while executing the sale-deed, temporary address was also falsely mentioned. After registering the FIR, the police conducted investigation and thereafter chargesheet was submitted by the police on 31.1.1991 and the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate by the impugned order has passed the order of cognizance. 3. Sri Ajay Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that from the complaint petition itself, no offence either under Section 420 or under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon a judgment of Honble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2008 SC 251 ; Indra Mohan Goswami and another V/s. State of Uttranchal and others. It was submitted that in absence of any material on record, learned Magistrate was not required to pass order of cognizance. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon a judgment of Honble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2008 SC 251 ; Indra Mohan Goswami and another V/s. State of Uttranchal and others. It was submitted that in absence of any material on record, learned Magistrate was not required to pass order of cognizance. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order of cognizance is fit to be rejected. 4. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf oi the State that there were materials on record and, as such, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of offence. 5. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Prima facie, the Court is satisfied that the offence was made out as per the allegation made in the complaint petition. Moreover, the case was thoroughly investigated by the police and thereafter chargesheet was submitted and the petitioners have approached this Court, while invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is to be exercised in exceptional and rarest of rare cases. The Court is of the view that it is not a fit case warranting exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Code of Criminal Procedure is self-contained Code and there is remedy available to the petitioners to raise the points at the stage of charge. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of cognizance. 6. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 7. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court below forthwith.