The court has the discretion to dismiss an application for quashing an order if it deems it proper to allow the petitioner to make submissions at a later stage of the proceedings.

P.K.Sarkar, J.

1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.8.1993 passed by Sri D.K. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya in C.654 -93/740 -93

2. The brief facts leading to this application appears to be that O.P. No. 2 filed a complaint petition in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, stating that he has purchased a piece of lard at Village Bodh Gaya, P.S. Bodh Gaya through two registered sale-deeds dated 17.6.88 from accused Ram Bilash Ram and Rajendra Prasad who are accused Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, after paying the consideration amount to them. After purchase the complainant went to take possession over that land but it was objected by Ragho Prasad, Kanhai Prasad and Sitaram Prasad who told the complainant that they had already purchased the lands in the year 1969 in the names of their wives Krishna Devi, Nageshwari Devi and Binda Devi. Hence, the aforesaid complaint was filed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate transferred the case to Sri D.K. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya under Section 192, Cr PC who examined some witnesses under Section 202 Cr PC and after perusing the evidences and the materials on record issued summons on 22.8.1993 against the petitioner and two other persons, namely, Ram Bilash Ram and Rajendra Prasad under Sections 467, 468, 420 and 120 (B), IPC.

3. Being aggrieved and dis-satis-fied with the impugned order, the present application has been filed.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that from the complaint petition it appears that the complainant purchased the said land from Ram Bilash Ram and Rajendra Prasad and paid consideration amount to them and not from the Petitioner Leela Devi. In that view, there is nothing against the petitioner Leela Devi. The allegations appears to be against Ram Bilash and Rajendra Prasad. Thus, the petitioner Leela Devi had not cheated the Opposite party in any way. However, no body appears on behalf of the complainant. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is present.

5. In view of the allegations in the case and also the circumstances, I do not feel it proper to quash the impugned order at this stage. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, the petitioner may make the submissions before the Court below at the time of framing of the charge. The Court below will examine the matter in detail and will consider the allegations against the petitioner and pass order in accordance with law.