1. The present petition under S.482, CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 25.04.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bettiah, West Champaran in Complaint Case No. 269C of 2015 corresponding to Trial No. 3022 of 2016, whereby learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence punishable under S.147, S.148, S.489 and S.385 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

2. The factual background of this case is that the Opposite Party No.2 / Raghubar Sharan submitted his written report to the Officer - in - Charge, Police Station - Shikarpur, Narkatiyaganj, West Champaran whereupon, Shikarpur P.S. Case No.86 of 2013 was registered on 19.03.2013 against the petitioner / Pannalal Sah and 15-20 unknown persons for the offences punishable under S.147, S.148, S.489 and S.385 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. In pursuance of the said FIR, the police conducted the investigation, but after investigation, the police filed closure report finding the case untrue against the petitioners. The closure report was accepted by learned Magistrate. However, the protest petition filed by the Opposite Party No.2 was treated as Complaint and after inquiry under S. 200, CrPC, learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order taking cognizance of offence against the petitioners.

4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that after lodging of the FIR, the police had conducted the full investigation and finding the allegation false against the petitioner, the police submitted the closure report.

6. He further submits that as per the statements made by the Complainant and the witnesses during inquiry under S.200, CrPC, there is no whisper against the petitioner No.2, Mukesh Singh. He further submits that even against the petitioner No.1 / Pannalal Sah alias Pannalal Prasad, there is no specific allegation against him. All the statements made by the Complainant and his witnesses are general and omnibus. There is no specific allegation even against the petitioner / Pannalal Sah let alone any allegation against the other petitioner / Mukesh Singh.

7. He further submits that the whole complaint appears to be prompted by mala fide to harass the petitioner, because there is civil dispute between the petitioners and the Opposite Party No.2 in regard to the land in question. Moreover, from the meaningful reading of the statements made by the Opposite Party No.2 before learned Magistrate under S.200, CrPC, no case is made out, because as per the allegation, the petitioners have forcibly took possession of the property in question. However, as per his own statement before learned Magistrate under S.200, CrPC, he is in possession of the property.

8. However, learned APP for the State and Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party defend the impugned order submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in it and the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 further submits that as per the allegation, prima facie case is made out under S.147, S.148, S.489 and S.385 of the Indian Penal Code and the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

10. He also submits that there is no civil dispute between the Opposite Party No.2 and the petitioners.

11. He further submits that trial is on the verge of conclusion, because all the witnesses except one, have been examined and discharged.

12. I considered the rival submissions advanced by the parties and perused the material on record.

13.At the outset, it would be relevant to point out that with the change of stage in the criminal proceeding, any petition under S.482, CrPC for quashing the cognizance order does not get infructuous. Here, Md. Naushad Khan and Another v. State of Bihar and Another as rep