JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 24.01.2018 by which cognizance of the offence under sections 379, 448, 427 r/w 34 IPC has been taken in Complaint Case No.1205 of 2016. 2. Plea raised on behalf of the petitioners is that a purely civil dispute has been given colour of a criminal case with mala-fide intention of the complainant to wreck vengeance on the petitioners. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the decision in “Rashmi Jain vs. State of U.P.” (2014) 13 SCC 553 submits that a bare reading of the complaint petition, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the evidence of the enquiry witnesses would indicate that the occurrence as alleged by the complainant is so improbable that no prudent person would believe that. The petitioners have brought on record the judgment in Title Suit No.19 of 2007 and the orders passed in Title Appeal No.51 of 2010 and Revocation Case No.1 of 2015 to demonstrate that there was litigation between the parties in which the complainant has lost his claim. 4. Briefly stated, on the allegations that the accused persons demolished the house constructed over the land, boundaries of which have been disclosed in paragraph no.2 of the complaint petition and took away the materials on tractor, the complaint petition was filed on 22.11.2016. During enquiry under section 202, the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation. Three enquiry witnesses were examined by him. A bare glance at the statement of the enquiry witnesses would disclose that they are eye-witnesses. On raising alarm by the complainant they reached the place of occurrence and saw the accused persons demolishing the house. The complainant in his solemn affirmation has given description of the occurrence. By now it is well-known that at the stage of section 202 Cr.P.C the accused person has no locus-standi. If the evidence brought before the Magistrate prima-facie discloses commission of an offence, the Magistrate is bound to issue summons/warrant against the accused person complained against under section 204 Cr.PC. By now it is well-known that at the stage of section 202 Cr.P.C the accused person has no locus-standi. If the evidence brought before the Magistrate prima-facie discloses commission of an offence, the Magistrate is bound to issue summons/warrant against the accused person complained against under section 204 Cr.PC. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that after the complainant lost the Title Suit No.19 of 2007 which was instituted by him seeking cancellation of the sale-deed through which the petitioners have acquired the land in question and the appeal preferred against the judgment in Title Suit No.19 of 2007 as well as Revocation Case No.1 of 2015 were dismissed the complainant with oblique motive has filed the Complaint Case No.1205 of 2016, is liable to be rejected. Pendency of civil litigation between the parties, in my opinion, is not a ground to disbelieve the consistent pre-summoning evidence produced in Complaint Case No.1205 of 2016. In view of the evidence of the complainant and the enquiry witnesses, it cannot be presumed that the alleged occurrence is so improbable that it has never happen. Similarly, the plea that the complaint case has been instituted with mala-fide intention cannot be accepted for the same reason. It is well-settled that if the evidence constituting prima-facie offence has been brought on record mala-fide of the complainant becomes secondary [refer, “State of Karnataka vs. M. Devendrappa” (2002) 3 SCC 89 ]. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts, finding no merit in this quash-petition, Cr. M.P. No.1796 of 2018 is dismissed.