Order This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 08.10.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No. 166 of 2013, whereby and whereunder he rejected the Criminal Revision, filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.08.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in connection with G.R. Case No.11 of 2011. 2. It appears that learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro has rejected the application of the petitioner for discharge by his order dated 12.08.2013 holding that, primafacie, offence against the petitioner is made out under Sections 406/420/34 of the I.P.C. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 166 of 2013 on the ground that in the F.I.R., the informant has stated that he withdrew Rs.5,95,000/- from the bank and paid it to the petitioner. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid fact was not found true during the investigation as there is nothing on record to show that the aforesaid amount was withdrawn from the bank. It is further submitted that there is a delay of about two years in lodging the F.I.R. and there is absolutely no explanation for the said delay. It is, then, submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged with a view to take revenge from the petitioner because petitioner has filed a case against Sitaram Rawani and Manish Kumar, who are cousin of the informant-opposite party no.2. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional P.P. submits that the learned Court below had considered the statement of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer and had come to the conclusion that the witnesses had stated that Rs. 6 lacs was paid to the petitioner by cash, at the time of marriage negotiation. It is, then, submitted that even if there is any contradiction in the evidence of informant and other witnesses, same will be taken into account at the time of trial. It is further submitted that the learned Courts below held that the evidence available on record if remain unrebutted, then offence under Sections 406, 420/34 of the I.P.C. are made out. It is further submitted by learned Additional P.P. that on the basis of delay of F.I.R. the order by which the petition for discharge has been rejected cannot be set aside. Learned Additional P.P. further submits that the complaint petition no. It is further submitted by learned Additional P.P. that on the basis of delay of F.I.R. the order by which the petition for discharge has been rejected cannot be set aside. Learned Additional P.P. further submits that the complaint petition no. 1741 of 2011 was filed against the cousin of informant, therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that the petitioner has filed the present F.I.R. with a view to take revenge from the petitioner. 5. Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case. Petitioner in the instant case has challenged the order passed against him in a revision application. It is well settled that an order of revision can be quashed while exercising of inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. if it is shown that by the said order, there is grave miscarriage of the justice or abuse of the process of the Court or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is a failure of justice or order or sentence passed by the learned Magistrate requires correction. Reference in this given may be made to Krishnan & Another Vrs. Krishnaveni & Another reported in 1997 (4) SCC 241 . In the instant case, I find that both the learned Courts below had taken into account the oral evidence of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation and they have come to the conclusion that, prima-facie, offence under Section 406, 420/34 of the I.P.C. made out against the petitioner. It further appears that the contradictions pointed out by the petitioner can be considered at the time of appreciation of evidence. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R. and there is no explanation can also be considered at the time of trial. 6. Thus, I find no illegality in the impugned order of the learned Court below. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Application dismissed.