JUDGMENT

1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 05.07.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh, Camp Sangaria ('revisional court') in Criminal Revision Petition No.94/96 (90/96), whereby while allowing the revision petition filed by accused-respondent No.2-Madan Lal, the order dated 19.01.1996 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangariya ('trial court') in the complaint submitted by complainant/petitioner, was quashed and set aside; vide the said order dated 19.01.1996, the learned trial court, while declining to accept the negative final report submitted before it by the police, took cognizance against accused- respondent No.2-Madan Lal under Sections 465 and 468 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner submitted that on 20.11.1995 (as mentioned in the revisional order), a complaint was lodged by complainant/petitioner-Smt. Shanti d/o Late Sultan and Late Ankauri, before the learned trial court. It was mentioned in the said complaint that Sultan, father of the present complainant, was having an agricultural land (kabza kasht) comprising Chak 12 PTP, 15 PTP, 16 PTP, 17 PTP and 3 KRW & 9 IDG; after Sultan's death, the entire land of the said chaks, under inheritance, was entered in the name of his son Late Lal Chand (brother of the present complainant-Shanti).

2.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the complaint further discloses that in December, 1961, the said Lal Chand expired, whereupon, the land comprising Chak 16 PTP and 17 PTP, was entered in the name of Late Ankori, Kalodevi and Late Paalo Devi (wife of accused-respondent No.2- Madan Lal), while the agricultural land comprising 12 PTP, 15 PTP, 3 KRW & 9 IDG remained in the name of Late Lal Chand; whereas, as per the family partition arrived long back, the lands of all the aforementioned chaks were partitioned accordingly; and the agricultural land measuring 54 bighas of Chak 17 PTP came in the share of Late Ankori (mother of the present complainant), Kalo Devi and Paalo Devi (wife of the accused-respondent No.2) in equal share i.e. 18 bighas-18 bighas-18 bighas.

2.2 Learned counsel also submitted that thereafter, Smt. Ankori died, while under a Will by Late Ankori, executed during her lifetime, her entire share in the agricultural land, was given to present complainant/petitioner-Shanti and her sister Jaikori.

2.3. The sheet anchor of the said complaint, as per learned counsel, was a fabricated and forged Waarisnama of Late Lal Chand dated 04.09.1995, allegedly prepared by accused- respondent No.2-Madan Lal (while abusing his position as the then Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kishanpura Utaradha), who was also the husband of Late Paalo Devi d/o Late Lal Chand (s/o Late Sultan and brother of the present complainant/petitioner-Shanti); the said Waarisnama of Late Lal Chand was pertaining to succession as to the agricultural land, which was originally entered in the name of complainant's father-Late Sultan, and thereafter in the name of Late Sultan's son, Late Lal Chand (brother of the present complainant/petitioner).

2.4 Learned counsel further submitted that the complaint discloses that as per the alleged fabricated and forged Waarisnama of Late Lal Chand, which was prepared by the accused-respondent No.2, the legal heirs of Late Lal Chand were his wife Kalo Devi and his daughter Paalo Devi (wife of the accused-respondent No.2); whereas Late Ankori (w/o Late Sultan and mother of Late Lal Chand) was also the legal heir of Late Sultan (original khatedar of the entire land); thereby depriving the present complainant-Shanti and his sister Jaikori of their lawful rights and interest in the land, being inherited by them under a Will executed by Late Ankori, during her lifetime, in regard to her share in the land in question.

2.5 Learned counsel also submitted that the ill-intention of the accused-respondent No.2-Madan Lal (husband