JUDGMENT : 1. In both the cases common complaint case and common cognizance order are under challenge and in both the petitions accused are the persons against whom the cognizance has been taken by the same order however these petitioners have filed separate petition and that is why both the petitions have been tagged together and being heard together with consent of the parties. 2. In both the petitions it has been prayed for quashing the order dated 22.3.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Saraikella in P.C.Case No.79 of 2012, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikella. 3. The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that the complainant narrated in his complaint petition and S.A that there is Khatiyani Land of his family at Mouza Harahariharpur, Thana No.24 and in this land the complainant and accused persons Dilip Poddar, Badal Poddar and Gopal Poddar has share along with other co-sharers. On 30.04.2012 accused persons sold all piece of land mentioned above i.e. measuring area of 0.49 acres plot no.95, khata no.25 situated at Mouza Harahariharpur, Thana no.76, within P.S. Kandra, Dist. Saraikella- Kharsawan to accused no.4 by misrepresenting the facts and false statement. It is alleged that the petitioner falsely stated in deed that his father Prabodh @ Mansha is dead and he is only son of his father while his father is still alive and has another son Pradeep. It is further alleged that accused Gopal Poddar is permanently resident of Purulia and never possesses the scheduled land as well as accused Badal Poddar is one of the five brother never was in possession. It is also alleged that accused no.4 being fully aware of the fact that the Vendor of the sale deed no.1532 dated 30.04.2012 was never in possession of the scheduled land nor they are competent persons to execute sale deed and the real several owners of the scheduled land who were in physical possession were kept in dark and got the sale deed executed by accused no.1 to 3. 4. Mr. Chakraverty, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that three persons have transferred the land in question in favour of the accused no.4 and cognizance has been taken against only three persons and the accused no.4 is the purchaser of the land in question. 4. Mr. Chakraverty, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that three persons have transferred the land in question in favour of the accused no.4 and cognizance has been taken against only three persons and the accused no.4 is the purchaser of the land in question. He submits that it has been alleged that the petitioners have sold the land of the co-sharer also on the ground that father of the petitioners died and they are the only legal heirs/successors of their father. He further submits that the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No.2233/2014 has studied up to class-V only and he was not able to read the contents of the Deed and it was not read over him. He further submits that there is remedy to file the suit for cancellation of the Deed and for civil case the criminal case has been lodged. 5. Mr. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.2 submits that the O.P.No.2 is co-sharer of the land in question and suppressing this fact on the ground that they are the sole legal heirs/successors of their late father the land has been sold and suppression itself is a cheating and the cognizance has been rightly taken. 6. The Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that cognizance order is a well-reasoned order and the learned court has discussed the materials on record and thereafter has taken cognizance. What has been submitted by Mr. Chakraverty, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners with regard to not knowing about the contents of the Deed and studying of the petitioner up to class-V can be ascertained in the trial only. If the land in question has been sold suppressing that the O.P.No.2 is co-sharer the intention was from the very beginning of cheating. There is no illegality in the cognizance order. Accordingly, Cr.M.P.No.1058 of 2015 and Cr.M.P.No.2233 of 2014 stand dismissed. 7. I.A if any also stands disposed of.