ORDER : Rajnesh Oswal, J.-Through the medium of present petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of order dated 22.11.2011 passed by the Court of learned Special Municipal Mobile Magistrate, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’) by virtue of which the petitioners have been charged for the commission of offence punishable under Section 420/34 RPC. 2. The brief facts as narrated in the petition are that:- The complainant namely, Shahid Hussain filed an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu against the petitioners stating therein that the petitioners are running a job racket and are cheating the educated unemployed youth by extracting money from them in order to provide them job. The petitioner No.1 is working as agent of his wife i.e., the petitioner No.2 who is serving in police department and they have taken Rs. 1,50,000/- from the complainant on the premise that they will provide a job in the police department as Driver and being unemployed, the complainant paid the said amount to them and in surety thereof they gave one affidavit and a cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- which was declared by the Bank as ‘fund insufficient’. The petitioners neither provided the job to them nor returned the said amount to him and when the complainant went to them for getting his money, they were threatening him that the petitioner No.2 was in police department and she could do anything as she had deep root in the police department. That the complainant was suffering from disease and had been referred to Delhi for further treatment and on his application, FIR bearing No.42 dated 31.03.2011 under Section 420/34 RPC was registered with the Police Station, Janipur Jammu. After the conclusion of investigation, the Challan for commission of offence under Section 420 RPC was filed against both the petitioners and the same is subjudice before the Court of learned Municipal Mobile Magistrate (JMIC), Jammu. That the learned trial Court after hearing the parties vide order dated 22.11.2011 framed the charges against both the petitioners for commission of offence under Section 420/34 RPC. 3. The petitioners have questioned the order dated 22.11.2011 as well as the proceedings on the ground that the complainant as well as his father-in-law were working with petitioner No.1 who is a contractor by profession and he was allotted the work of construction of telecommunication building of Police Housing Corporation in Police Lines, Doda. 3. The petitioners have questioned the order dated 22.11.2011 as well as the proceedings on the ground that the complainant as well as his father-in-law were working with petitioner No.1 who is a contractor by profession and he was allotted the work of construction of telecommunication building of Police Housing Corporation in Police Lines, Doda. It is further stated that once the work was complete, Sardar Mohd and Shahid Hussain took the amounts those were due to be paid to them. However, as they were dissatisfied, they again approached the petitioner No.1 for more money and though the petitioners were not under obligation to pay them more money but still they paid a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and sum of Rs.1,40,000/- through two cheques in favour of Shahid Hussain i.e., the complainant. 4. It is also the case of the petitioners that the said cheques were bounced as the petitioner No.1 could not get the money from the various sources and as such without realizing the difficulties of the petitioner No.1, the said Sardar Mohd Hussain preferred a complaint before the Authority under Payment of Wages Act on 19.11.2008 and the said complaint was disposed of by the Authority vide order dated 23.06.2010. The order dated 23.06.2010 in unambiguous terms provides that the cheque No. 003730 dated 20.05.2008 amounting to Rs. 1,40,000/- has been issued by petitioner No.1 towards the amount which was due to be paid to said Sardar Mohd and Shahid Hussain. 5. It is stated that the said cheque was only on account of the work done by Sardar Mohd. and Shah Hussain and was not for any other purpose. 6. Mr. C.M Koul, learned senior counsel vehemently argued that the dispute if any, between the parties, is of civil in nature and once there is a reference of cheque No.003730 of Rs.1,40,000/- in the order passed by the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, the complainant cannot lay any claim over the same as being the amount returned by the petitioner No.1 in lieu of the money that was paid by the complainant to him for getting job in police department as Driver. 7. Mr. Aseem Sawhney, learned AAG submits that the factual aspects cannot be considered at this stage. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. 7. Mr. Aseem Sawhney, learned AAG submits that the factual aspects cannot be considered at this stage. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. From the record it is evident that there is evidence on record that the complainant handed over the amount to them for providing job in police department as Driver as the petitioners had shown their proximity to the higher officials of the police and in this way have duped the complainant. 10. A perusal of cheque No.003730 reveals that the same has been issued in the name of Shenaz. At the time of framing of charge, the only allegations as levelled in the challan duly supported by the evidence are required to be seen. The defence of the accused cannot be looked into at this stage. If from the allegations levelled in the Challan duly supported by the evidence, it is evident that the petitioners are prima facie guilty of committing the offence for which the Challan has been filed against them, they can be charged for the commission of the same. 11. From the statement of the complainant, it is evident that he had paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant and further in acknowledgment thereof, the petitioner No.1 had also given one affidavit to him and further the petitioner No.1 had issued one cheque in the name of his wife. 12. The contention raised by the petitioners that the cheque was in lieu of the work done and further that the dispute is of civil nature cannot be appreciated at this stage. The same amounts to defense of the petitioners which they can prove by leading evidence before the trial Court. 13. I have gone through the order passed by learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has considered each and every aspect of the case and has passed a reasoned order. There is no illegality or impropriety in the order impugned. As such, the present petition is found to be without any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly.