JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J - 1. BOTH these petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as common questions of law and fact are involved. 2. IN the present petitions filed under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sh. Gaurav Jain petitioner (in Cr.MMO No.211/2012) and Sh. Parag Jain petitioner (in Cr.MMO No.212/2012), have prayed for the following reliefs:- "i) That proceedings being conducted by Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Nalagarh Distt. Solan in Case No.117/2 of 2011, titled as HPFC Vs M/s P.S.J. Communications (P) Ltd be set aside against petitioner as the same is against criminal procedure, petitioner be discharged from aforesaid Case No.117/2 of 2011, titled as HPFC Vs M/s P.S.J. Communications (P) Ltd. ii) Petitioner further prays to set aside his summoning in case No.117 of 2011, titled as HPFC Vs M/s P.S.J. Communications (P) Ltd and discharge him from aforesaid proceedings being conducted by Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Nalagarh Distt. Solan in Case No.117/2 of 2011, titled as HPFC Vs M/s P.S.J. Communications (P) Ltd. for the reason stated in the petition as the same is wrong and discharge petitioner from proceeding of the aforesaid case/ objections." When the petitions were taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners confined the petitions to orders dated 4.11.2008 and 5.5.2010 by making the following submissions:- i) The objections filed by the complainant cannot be treated as a complaint. ii) The proceedings in relation to the F.I.R. still remain inconclusive. iii) The Court cannot grant relief in excess of the pleadings or claimed in preliminary evidence. 3. THESE petitions, being highly belated were filed only on 13.12.2012. 4. ORDER sheets annexed with the petitions reveal that no charge has yet been framed against the petitioners. It is contended that petitioners are not signatory to the trust deed. Also original documents i.e. the contract of hypothecation stood novated and that present petitioners had resigned prior to such novation of contract. In my considered view, all these contentions can be taken by the petitioners before the Court below. As such, without adjudicating the petitions on merits, the same are disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to urge all points before the appropriate forum, at the appropriate stage. With the aforesaid observations, present petitions stand disposed of, so also, the pending application(s), if any.