JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the complainant/petitioner against the order dated 01.04.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar, Camp Suratgarh (‘revisional court’) in Criminal Revision No.27/98, whereby, while allowing the revision filed by accused-respondent No.2, the order dated 11.09.1998 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh (‘trial court’) in Criminal Case No.541/98 was quashed and set aside; vide the said order dated 11.09.1998, the learned trial court took cognizance against the accused-respondent No.2 under Sections 182, 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner submits that a complaint was submitted by complainant/petitioner-Boord Singh before the learned trial court alleging therein that accused-respondent No.2-Avtar Singh had furnished a wrong information before the Registrar, Births and Deaths, Gram Panchayat Sardargarh regarding the death (occurred on 13.06.1990) of one Hazoor Singh s/o Kan Singh, r/o Chak 9 NRD, and on the basis of the same, a forged death certificate of his death was obtained; whereas, as per the complaint, the said Hazoor Singh was alive and residing in Village Kotbhai, Tehsil Mukatsar; the said Hazoor Singh had three sons, namely, Harnek Singh, Preetam Singh and Hardev Singh; such information, amongst others, regarding the fact that the said Hazoor Singh was alive, was also confirmed and verified by the Gram Panchayat, Kotbhai.

2.1 Learned counsel further submits that as per the complaint, the grandfather (Kan Singh) of the accused-respondent No.2-Avtar Singh had no son with the name Hazoor Singh, and the same was also confirmed and verified by the then Sarpanch of the concerned Gram Panchayat Saheebchand, which was also enclosed with the complaint in question; it is also reflected in the said enclosure that Kan Singh had three sons, namely, Jagat Singh, Gurbaksh Singh and Ujagar Singh, and two daughters, namely, Harkaur and Roopakaur.

2.2 Learned counsel also submits that the complaint further discloses that the present accused-respondent No.2-Avtar Singh is the son of Hazoor Singh’s sister, namely, Roopakaur i.e. real nephew (bhaanja), but on the basis of certain forged certificate, he pretended himself otherwise to be Hazoor Singh’s nephew (Bhatija); not only this, Avtar Singh, on the pretext, of a forged Adoption Deed (Goadnama), has shown his son, namely, Charan Singh, to be the adopted (kholayat) son of Hazoor Singh, while also showing the said Hazoor Singh issue-less (beaulaad), whereas the said Hazoor Singh already had two sons, as mentioned above.

2.3 Learned counsel, therefore, submits that in pursuance of the aforementioned criminal and wrongful acts, on the part of the accused-respondent No.2-Avtar Singh, he was willing to unlawfully acquire the entire land of the said Hazoor Singh measuring 10 bighas comprising Chak 9 NRD (B); 25 bighas of land comprising chak 2 BPM and; 19 bighas of land comprising Chak 12 NRD (B).

2.4 Learned counsel also submits that the complaint in question was forwarded by the learned trial court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation to the concerned police station, whereupon a case bearing NO.97/94 was registered at Police Station, Suratgarh, and the investigation accordingly commenced; however, after investigation, the concerned investigating officer submitted a negative final report before the learned trial court, while stating therein that Hazoor Singh s/o Kan Singh, whose death certificate has been obtained by the accused-respondent No.2-Avtar Singh, actually expired; whereas the person with the name Hazoor Singh, as mentioned in the complaint in question, was Hazoor Singh s/o Bhaag Singh, and thus, as per the investigating authority, no prima facie case has been found to be made out against the accused-respondent No.2-Avtar Singh.

2.5 Learned counsel also submitted that the comp