JUDGEMENT 1. Eight petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 10.3.1999 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan in Cr. Revision No.210 of 1998. By the said order the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the revision petition which was filed against the order dated 16.7.1998 whereby the learned Magistrate had found sufficient materials for framing of charge. 2. The short facts of the case are that opposite party no.2 filed a compliant petition alleging therein that the lands which were gifted to him were fraudulently sold by the accused persons in connivance with each other. After filing of the complaint, the complainant was examined and the learned magistrate took cognizance of the offence. Subsequently, before charge two witnesses were examined by the complaiant, who supported the case of the prosecution. At the stage of charge the learned Magistrate by order dated 16.7.1998 found prima facie case to proceed against the accused persons and a date was fixed for framing of charge. The complaint case was instituted for the offences under sections 463, 465, 467, 471 and 420 of the Indian penal Code 3. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners while challenging the revisional order submits that it was out and out a case of civil nature. He submits that the complainant had approached for settlement of the dispute through Punches but when Panchayti failed the present complaint petition was filed. The allegation being civil in nature, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for quashing of the order of revision as well as for quashing of entire proceeding in Compliant Case No.994 of 1995. 4. Mr. Udit Narayan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present petition. He submits that in the garb of filing a petition under section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure virtually the petitioners have filed a criminal revision petition which is barred under section 397 of the cr. P. C. He further submits that there is specific case against the petitioners. The witnesses before the charge has categorically supported the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, he prays for rejection of the present petition. 5. I have also heard Mr. P. C. He further submits that there is specific case against the petitioners. The witnesses before the charge has categorically supported the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, he prays for rejection of the present petition. 5. I have also heard Mr. Hriday Prasad Singh, A. P. P. appearing on behalf of the State. He submits that at the initial or interlocutory stage this court may not interfere with the criminal proceedings that too while exercising its inherent power under section 482 of the Cr. P. C. 6. Besides hearing the parties, I have also examined the complaint petition as well as the order passed by the revisional court. I do not find any error in the revisional order and, as such, I am not inclined to interfere with the case. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 7. In this case, by an order dated 25.11.1999, while issuing notice to opposite party no.2, this Court had directed that in the meantime, further proceeding in the court below shall remain stayed. Subsequently, the case was admitted on 8.2.2000 and it was directed that pending disposal of the application, the interim order of stay granted on 25.11.1999 shall continue. 8. In view of rejection of this petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below forthwith. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners may be granted liberty to raise all the defence at an appropriate stage. It goes without saying that at an appropriate stage, the petitioners are at liberty to take any defence.