JUDGMENT R.K. Mishra, J – 1. This application is directed for quashing the order dated 18.12.1982 passed by the Judicial Magistrte, 1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 170 C of 1982, taking cognizance of the offence under sections 147, 148 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused- petitioners and also the order dated 19.09.1985, passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, framing charge against the accused-petitioners under sections 148 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-petitioners no. 2 and 3, namely, Bijedra Singh and Rajeshwar Singh and under sections 147 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the rest accused-petitioners. A prayer has also been made to quash the entire proceeding arising out of the aforesaid complaint case. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that 54 decimals of Plot No. 1369 of Khata No. 183 has been purchased by the petitioners by two separate sale deeds and, accordingly, the name of the petitioner no. 1 has been entered in Register-2, for which, the revenue receipts are being issued in favour of accused-petitioner no. 1. As such, the opposite party no. 2 with oblique motive has filed the false complaint case only to harass the accused- petitioners and, even if, the allegation as made in the complaint petition is taken to be true, the dispute appears to be civil in nature. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 made submission that now in the case, the evidence has been closed and the case is pending for argument. 4. On bare perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that it is admitted by the complainant-opposite party no. 2 about purchasing of half portion of land of Plot No. 1369 by the petitioners in course of proceeding under section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code, but it is also alleged that a Title Suit No.56 of 2004 was filed by the complainant-opposite party no.2, impleading the accused-petitioner no. 1 as defendant and the said Title Suit was decreed in favour of the complainant-opposite party no.2, and, accordingly delivery of possession was made in favour of the complainant-opposite party no.2. 5. 1 as defendant and the said Title Suit was decreed in favour of the complainant-opposite party no.2, and, accordingly delivery of possession was made in favour of the complainant-opposite party no.2. 5. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find any illegality in the orders dated 18.12.1982 and 19.09.1985, passed in Complaint Case No. 170 C of 1982 by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, amounting to abuse of the process of the Court for interference in inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, that are their defence, which cannot be look into under section 204 of Code of Criminal Procedure to summon the accused on enquiry. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise their defence at the appropriate stage during the course of trial. 6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.