- (1.)VINOD Prasad, J. Three siblings Mohd. Murtza Khan, Mohd. Sanaullah Khan and Mohd. Farooq Khan all sons of Mohd. Umar Khan have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Cr. P. C. with the prayer that the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5689/02, State v. Murtza Khan under Section 406, IPC, P. S. Katra Kotwali, pending in the Court of C. J. M. , Mirzapur arising out of charge-sheet No. 68-A/02 dated 27-6-2002 be quashed.
(2.)ANCILLARY prayer is for the stay of further preceding pendente lite. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicants have cheated the respondent No. 2 Krishna Kumar Mishra the informant to a tune of Rs. 60,000/- as well as of his Maruti Car having registration No. U. P. 70 M 2001.
I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned Counsel for the respondent and learned AGA at great length.

Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that in this case the prosecution case is lodged with mala fide intention and deserves to be quashed because Maruti Car was registered in the name of one of the applicant and in respect thereof the RTO Allahabad had issued notice to respondent No. 2. He further submitted that all the allegations are mala fide and the prosecution deserves to be quashed.

(3.)LEARNED Counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that this application has been filed on the basis of false averments made in the application. She contended that Annexure 2 filed alongwith this application is a incomplete document and the material portion of the said document was intentionally not got photographed. LEARNED Magistrate after hearing both the sides had released the Maruti Car in favour of the respondent No. 2 Krishna Kumar Misra by order dated 28-5-2002 in the aforesaid crime. She further contended that the age and address of the applicants mentioned in the application is absolutely wrong and that the question which has been raised by the applicant in this application are disputed questions of facts which requires adjudication after evidence is led in the trial and the informant must get a chance to substantiate his version levelled in the FIR.
I have considered the arguments of rival sides. Who is owner of the car and whether the applicant had cheated the respondent No. 2 to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- or not are the disputed questions of facts which cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of power under Section 482, Cr. P. C. It is for the trial Magistrate to look into the said facts and to decide it in accordance with law keeping in mind the evidence led in the trial. It is not for this Court to nip the prosecution into bud if the same discloses the commission of offence. From the pleading in this application it cannot be said that no offence at all is made out against this the applicants.