ORDER : Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 2. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 1694 of 2008 including the order dated 03.09.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih whereby and where under cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint petition itself reveals that a civil dispute and the allegation that an agreement was entered at Hyderabad between the petitioners and the complainant are falsified by the agreement itself which is a forged and fabricated document. It has been submitted that subsequent to the filing of the complaint case the opposite party no. 2 had taken resort to civil remedy by filing a suit which is still pending. Learned counsel further submits that no prior notice was given to the petitioners before institution of the case demanding the alleged sum of money which has been paid by the opposite party no. 2 to the petitioners towards the purchase of the land belonging to the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that no case of cheating under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. 4. In support of his contention that the allegations do only point to a civil wrong, he has referred to the case of Murari Lal Gupta vs. Gopi Singh reported in (2005) 13 SCC 699 . 5. Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, has submitted that after examination of the witnesses the case had been fixed for examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and since there has been an interim order no further progress has been made in the trial. He further submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioners of taking the amount from the complainant but thereafter registering the land in the name of the wife of the petitioner no. 1. He, therefore, submits that the complaint petition itself suggests that the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of the offence and, therefore, this application is liable to be dismissed. 6. A complaint case was instituted by the opposite party no. 1. He, therefore, submits that the complaint petition itself suggests that the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of the offence and, therefore, this application is liable to be dismissed. 6. A complaint case was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 which is with respect to a purported agreement between both the sides for sale of three and half decimals of land belonging to the father of the petitioner no. 1. It has been alleged that an amount of Rs. 55,000/- was paid by the opposite party no. 2 but instead of registering the land in the name of the complainant and giving vacant possession of the same to the complainant the same was registered in the name of the petitioner no. 2. Although subsequent to the institution of the complaint case a title suit had already filed by the complainant with respect to the amount which has been given to the petitioners but merely because a suit has been filed the same would not prevent the petitioners from being prosecuted in criminal case. The intention of the petitioners in taking amount of Rs. 55,000/- from the complainant and, thereafter, transferring the land in the name of the petitioner no. 2 do suggest deliberate act of cheating on the part of the petitioners which would come within the definition of cheating as envisaged under 415 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners with respect to the agreement which he claims is a fabricated one this Court in a proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot look into the genuinity or otherwise of such document as this Court cannot weigh the evidence in order to come to a conclusion as to whether such document is genuine or fabricated. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the case of Murari Lal Gupta vs. Gopi Singh (Supra) wherein it has been held that failure to honor the agreement does not amount to a cheating and the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners is easily distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as apart from dishonoring the agreement entered into between the petitioner no. 1 and the complainant after the amount of Rs. 55,000/- was taken the land was registered in the name of the petitioner no. 2. 1 and the complainant after the amount of Rs. 55,000/- was taken the land was registered in the name of the petitioner no. 2. It is a settled principal of law that an act may invite a civil as well as criminal consequence and merely because the dispute arose out of an agreement for sale and purchase of land that by itself would not be restricted to a civil remedy as the subsequent act of the petitioner no. 1 in getting the land registered in the name of the petitioner no. 2 amounts to an act of cheating. Moreover, the trial is on the verge of closure as the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that on account of interim order passed by this Court, the trial has been stalled and it is at the stage of examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 8. Consequent to what has been stated above, no merit exists in this application which is, accordingly, dismissed. Application dismissed