In the absence of evidence of forgery, a loan transaction between the parties, a pending civil suit, and the petitioner's lack of involvement in the documents, no offence is made out against the petitioner, and the revisional court erred in directing the trial court to take cognizance.

JUDGMENT

Pankaj Bhandari, J. - Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by order dated 19.11.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Court No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the court below has set aside the order of discharge of the petitioner dated 24.08.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.10, Jaipur City, Jaipur and remanded the case back to the trial court to rehear the complainant and take cognizance against the petitioner. Court below has further directed the trial court that, if necessary, statements be recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., 1973

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that complainant is sister-in-law of the petitioner. In the FIR lodged by complainant on 27.11.2003, she has mentioned that documents were forged by the petitioner and a forged agreement to sale was prepared. It is contended that the petitioner's wife and complainant are real sisters. Petitioner is neither a witness to the agreement, nor is he a beneficiary. It is only after petitioner's wife filed a civil suit for specific performance that the present FIR was lodged. It is contended that though it was mentioned in the initial FIR that the signature was forged, but when the signature was sent to the F.S.L., the report by the F.S.L. stated that the documents bear the signature of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant changed her stand and stated that she was forced to sign the agreement to sale. It is contended that the matter is being tossed from one court to another. Police submitted a negative final report and then a protest petition was filed by the complainant. Vide order dated 03.11.2006, the trial court rejected the negative final report and directed the police to submit report after considering the F.S.L. report. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner preferred a revision petition which was decided on 22.01.2007 by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4 and order dated 03.11.2006 was set aside and the trial court was directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with Chapter-XV of Cr.P.C. Learned trial court thereafter vide order dated 28.04.2007 accepted the negative final report and rejected the protest petition filed by the complainant.

3. Aggrieved by the acceptance of negative final report and rejection of the protest petition, complainant preferred a revision petition, which was decided by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Court No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide order dated 13.02.2008. Revision petition filed by the complainant was allowed. Order dated 24.08.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.10, Jaipur City, Jaipur was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Magistrate to give opportunity of hearing to the complainant and take cognizance against the petitioner.

4. Petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2008 preferred a Criminal Misc. Petition No.335/2008 before the High Court. High Court set aside the order dated 13.02.2008 and directed the revisional court to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to both the parties.

5. The matter was then taken up by the same court vide order dated 19.11.2009 which has again set aside the order dated 24.08.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur and directed the court below to take cognizance against the petitioner and if required conduct the enquiry under section 202 of Cr.P.C., 1973 Aggrieved by which, the present revision petition has been preferred. Notices were served to the complainant-respondent, but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant-respondent before the court today.

6. The present case has a checkered history as it has been transferred from one court to another and the revisional court has come to the conclusion that the present petitioner is involved in the offence and directed the trial court to take cognizance against the petitioner.

7. I have carefully perused the entire file and the diffe