JUDGMENT 1. - This is one of those typical cases where civil dispute between two brothers have been converted into a criminal case for cowing down and pressurising the other brother. 2. It is unfortunate that the magistrate on a bare submission of the complaint who is interested in his own case supported by one Sukh Ram has registered a case for serious offence of forgery and cheating, conspiracy under sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. 3. The death took place on 30th June, 1970 and the case has been registered on 1-8-1983 broadly after 13 years of the alleged occurrence. The story appears to be cock and wool story that an educated person who is an employee of the audit department of the Rajasthan would sign blank papers for obtaining the amount refunded from the Bank which is generally and usually done by a cheque. 4. The more and more I looked into the facts more and more I am convinced that one brother in order to have a specific settlement regarding the property of the father make other brother as abuse to process of criminal court by launching out prosecution where subject matter is of civil dispute and the police has already held it to be so after due investigation. 5. Whatever may be the facts of civil litigation in which the finding would be given according to the evidence to be recorded or recorded so far, I am convinced that the present prosecution is gross abuse of the process of criminal court and the Magistrate at the time of taking cognizance had no such evidence before him. The statements of the complainant and Sukhram are falsified wholly by the police investigation where a number of other witnesses were also examined and all aspect were looked into by the independent agency. It is also most curious how for an incident of 1970 cognizance of a criminal case has been taken in 1983, without mentioning the special reasons for this inordinate delay and one and half decade approximately. 6. All the observation made above would not be used in favour or against, any of the parties in civil litigation to power or disprove the forgery, if it is alleged and proved. 7. 6. All the observation made above would not be used in favour or against, any of the parties in civil litigation to power or disprove the forgery, if it is alleged and proved. 7. Consequently, the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is accepted and the order taking cognizance against applicants by the Magistrate dated 1st August, 1983 and confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 28th October, 1983 are quashed.Application accepted. *******