JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of order dated 26.6.1998 passed by Sri k. N. Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, rosera in Complaint Case No.25 of 1998/t. R. No.570 of 1998. By the said order, learned Magistrate had taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 420/34, 467/34 and 468/34 of the Indian Penal code. 2. Short fact of the case is that the complainant filed a complaint case alleging therein that petitioners in the garb of transferring a piece of land after taking considering money fraudulently executed a sale deed in respect of the land of the complainant itself. After obtaining the certified copy of the sale deed from the registry office, this fact came to the notice of the complainant and thereafter, complaint case was filed. In the complaint case, after examination of complainant on S. A. ,two witnesses were also examined, who supported the case of complainant and after being satisfied with the materials available on record, the learned magistrate, byits order dated 26.6.1998, took cognizance for the offences under Sections 420/34, 467/34 and 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while challenging the order of cognizance,has firstly submitted that alleged execution or fraud was committed long back in the year 1990 and as such after expiry of eight years, the court has incorrectly taken cognizance in the case. He submits that order of cognizance was barred under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further submits that along with the complaint petition,the complainant had not produced any document in support of its case. However, from the impugned order, it is evident that during the enquiry stage, the complainant had also brought certain records/documents besides the evidence of two witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the same dispute, there is one title suit pending before the competent court. 4. I have also heard Shri Nazir Ansari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, who has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. He submits that at this initial stage, this Court may not intervene that too while exercising power under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal procedure. 5. 4. I have also heard Shri Nazir Ansari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, who has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. He submits that at this initial stage, this Court may not intervene that too while exercising power under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal procedure. 5. Besides hearing learned counsel for both the parties, I have also examined materials available on record as well as the impugned order. On perusal of the impugned order and also complaint petition and materials available on record, I am of the view that while taking cognizance, learned Magistrate has committed no error. Moreover, in the complaint petition itself, the complainant has disclosed that he came to know regarding the fraud only after obtaining certified copy of the said sale deed and, accordingly, I am of the view that the question of limitation in the facts and circumstances of the present case has got no application. Since immediately after coming to know that he was de-frauded by the petitioners, the complaint petition was filed. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present petition and petition stands rejected. 7. The present case was admitted on 25.8.1999 and while admitting the case, this Court had directed that during the pendency of this application, further proceeding in Complaint Case no.25 of 1998 pending in the court of Shri K. N. Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rosera, shall remain stayed. 8. In view of rejection of the present case, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below forthwith.