Gautam Chowdhary, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Umesh Vats, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the material on record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, District Allahabad, whereby protest petition filed by the opposite party no.2 has been allowed and the case was directed to be treated as complaint case as well as to quash the summoning order dated 10.01.2018 passed by leaned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, District Allahabad in Criminal Complaint Case No. 66 of 2013 (Rajendra Kumar Dubey Vs. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari) under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 I.P.C. Police Station George Town, District Allahabad as well as to quash the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed, who are merely witnesses to the sale deed and that the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. Learned counsel further submits that initially FIR was lodged in the matter, in which, after investigation final report was submitted against which, protest petition was filed upon which, the concerned Magistrate without applying its judicial mind and going through the record illegally treated protest petition as complaint rejecting the final report. He further argued that thereafter the applicants have been summoned in a routine manner vide order impugned dated 10.01.2018 to face trial under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 I.P.C. without considering the factual and legal aspects of the matter and thus, the impugned order is liable to be quashed by this Court.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as A.G.A. has submitted that the impugned summoning order has been passed after appraising the evidence available on the face of record, which is perfectly, legal just and proper and calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, the Court finds that the allegations made in the complaint disclose commission of a cognizable offence and those allegations have found support in the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. on the basis whereof the summoning order has been passed against the applicants, which orders do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction.

6. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the impugned orders is refused.

7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

8. The instant application lacks merit and is dismissed.