Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The petitioners have moved the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') for the following relief:

"That the petitioners, by this application seek quashing of order dated 24/2/2012 passed by Dr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, Additional Sessions Judge Ist, Madhepura in Cr. Rev. No. 24 of 2011 affirming the order dated 21/9/2010 passed by Sri A.Kumar, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Madhepura in complaint case being C-45/2010/ T. R. No. 3791 of 2010, taking cognizance under Sections 147/323/504/420/423/467/468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners on the basis of a complaint petition filed by opposite party no. 2."

3. The allegation against the petitioners is of transferring lands belonging to the opposite party no. 2.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the application for the reason that upon the complaint, the Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance which the petitioners challenged in Criminal Revision No. 24 of 2011 and the same having been dismissed on 24.02.2012 by the Court of Sessions, the present application under Section 482 of the Code was not maintainable. For such proposition, learned counsel relief upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajinder Prasad v. Bashir reported as, (2001) 8 SCC 522, the relevant being at paragraph no. 7; in the case of Rajathi v. C. Ganesan reported as, (1999) 6 SCC 326, the relevant being at paragraph no. 10 and in the case of Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa reported as, (1995) 4 SCC 41, the relevant being at paragraph no. 10.

5. Though, learned counsel for the petitioners was not in a position to counter the objection raised by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, with regard to maintainability but from perusal of the aforesaid judgments, it transpires that there is no complete bar to the Court exercising its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code except that in cases where already the party has availed of the remedy of revision under Section 397 of the Code before the Court below, the High Court while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code has to do so in appropriate cases to meet the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Thus, in the present case, for the purposes of coming to a conclusion as to whether the present case falls under such category, which would persuade the Court to interfere so as to prevent grave miscarriage of justice, the Court has heard the matter on merits.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the dispute is purely civil in nature and criminal proceedings are an abuse of the process of the Court. It was submitted that except for the allegation of mild scuffle between the parties, no other criminal act is reflected from the complaint petition. Learned counsel submitted that the matter relating to title and execution of sale deed, being purely civil in nature, the opposite party no. 2 had the remedy before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of the same. It was further submitted that the brother of the opposite party no. 2 has filed Title Suit No. 2 of 2011, against the petitioners and others which is pending for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that even otherwise, it has been held by the Court that cognizance could not be taken under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, as cheating in a civil dispute, without the purchasers of the land being made parties, which in the present case has not been done. For such proposition, he relied upon a decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Md. Abdul Raquib v. State reported as, (2007) 1 PLJR 556.

7. Learned A.P.P. submitted that tho