From the very perusal of complaint, it is apparent that agricultural land of Dori Lal, was got purchased by registered deed by Hari Shankar, for a consideration of Rs. 2,10,000/-, and this was a deed executed by Dori Lal, as has been admitted in his statement recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Hence, Magistrate did not pass summoning order for any fraud by Hari Shankar whereas the summoning is about payment of Rs. 4 lacs and usurpation of same by doing criminal breach of trust. This payment is through bank cheque and it has been admitted by complainant in his statement recorded under Section 200 and his witnesses including Dori Lal, recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Now, accused applicant is stating that above money was received but it was against the dues standing against Dori Lal. Now this is a question of fact to be seen by trial court and this Court, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to embark upon the factual matrix. Accordingly, there was, prima facie, sufficient ground for
