ORDER : – The applicants have preferred this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for setting aside of the impugned order dated 9-7-2012, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shujalpur, District-Shajapur has taken the cognizance against the applicants for commission of offence punishable under sections 417, 419, 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code and quashment of consequential proceedings of S.T. No. 77/2014, pending before the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur, District-Shajapur against the applicants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27-10-2007, the respondent No. 1/complainant filed a private complaint against the applicants before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shujalpur, District-Shajapur for commission of offence punishable under sections 417, 419, 420, 424, 466 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that she has got 1/3rd share of certain land situated at village Alisariya being successor of her mother and the applicants, who are her cousin brothers are also having 1/3rd share in the property being successor of Bherulalji, but they managed to get her share also in their names by moving an application for partition before Tehsildar on 3-10-2003 and they managed to get her forged thumb impression in Tehsil, while she never put the same on any document in Tehsil. Learned JMFC has recorded the statement of respondent No. 1/complainant and her witnesses under sections 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code respectively. On the basis of which, vide order dated 9-7-2012, he has taken cognizance against the applicants for commission of offence punishable under sections 417, 419, 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code and registered the complaint. After appearance of the applicants, he committed the case to the Sessions Court for the trial, which is pending as S.T. No. 77/2014 before the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur, District-Shajapur. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the applicants submitted that the respondent No. 1/complainant has suppressed some important material facts in the complaint as well in the statements that against the order of partition dated 28-1-2014, she filed an appeal before Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), which was dismissed, vide order dated 21-6-2007 holding that the respondent No. 1/complainant herself put her signatures everywhere like application for partition, proceedings etc. in the Tehsil and therefore, she has no right to challenged the same. in the Tehsil and therefore, she has no right to challenged the same. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, respondent No. 1/complainant preferred first appeal before the Revenue Commissioner, which was also dismissed, vide order dated 29-4-2010. Thereafter, respondent No. 1/complainant has filed a civil suit, with regard to same subject matter for the relief of declaration, partition, consequential relief of possession and mesne profit in the Civil Court on 3-1-2008. Though, the suit was partly decreed in favour of the respondent No. 1/complainant, against which a First Appeal at the instance of present applicants is also pending, which is registered as FA No. 11(A)/12 before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Shujalpur, District-Shajapur. It is also submitted that before filing of private complaint, the matter was reported to the police by complainant, in which anywhere it is mentioned that the applicants have managed to stand another lady as ‘Saurambai’ before the Tehsil Court and made her forged thumb impression, while she said that the applicants have put her forged thumb impressions. 4. It is also submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the applicants that before taking cognizance, learned JMFC also sought report from the police on the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 and after enquiry, police submitted a report to the Magistrate, in which it was found that no offence is made out against the applicants. Despite there being no evidence and no prima facie case, an offence has been registered by the JMFC against the applicants ignoring the fact that the instant case is purely a civil nature dispute amongst the parties, therefore, no criminal proceedings should be entertained. Under these circumstances, learned Senior Counsel for applicants prays for setting aside of the impugned order dated 9-7-2012 and quashment of consequential proceedings of S.T. No. 77/2014, pending before the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur, District-Shajapur against the applicants. In support of his contentions, learned Senior counsel for the applicants has placed reliance in the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Joseph Salva Raja vs. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59 , S. R. Sukumar vs. S. Sunnad Raghuram, AIR 2015 SC 2757 and M/s Indial Oil Corporation vs. M/s NEPC India Ltd. and ors. 5. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/complainant opposed the prayer by contending that the applicants have preferred the present petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code after more than half a year from the order of framing of charge against them by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur, District-Shajapur. In the aforesaid case the complainant and other witnesses have already been examined and the statement of the applicants have already recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and now the case is listed for defence evidence, therefore, at this stage, it will not be appropriate to interfered in the impugned order passed by the JMFC for taking cognizance against the applicants for commission of aforesaid offence by exercising powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, he prayed for rejection of the petition. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor also opposed the prayer and prayed for rejection of the petition. 7. Having heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed along with the petition. 8. From the perusal of the documents, it appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shujalpur District Shajapur has taken cognizance against the applicants vide order dated 9-7-2012 for commission of offence punishable under sections 417, 419, 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code and after appearance of the applicants, the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trail because the offence punishable under section 467 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by Sessions Court. The applicants have preferred the present petition on 19-9-2014 i.e. after more than two years from the order of taking cognizance by JMFC. 9. It is not disputed that the prosecution has already examined all the witnesses and closed his evidence and the applicants/accused persons have also examined before the trial Court under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and now the case is pending for recording the defence evidence meaning thereby, the case is at advance stage and at this stage it will not be appropriate to interfere in the order of taking cognizance for commission of offence punishable under sections 417, 419, 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shujalpur, District-Shajapur. 10. 10. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the interference under section 482 is not warranted. Accordingly, without considering the merits of the case, the present petition is dismissed summarily and the applicants are at liberty to raised all these objections before the trial Court at the time of final hearing. So far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants are concerned, they are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case because in those judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that where the appellant’s prosecution would only lead to his harassment and humiliation, the FIR cannot be quashed by exercising power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is also held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the tendency of convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases, should be depreciated. 11. Consequently, this application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. 12. Let a copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information. Certified copy as per rules.