JUDGMENT 1. - The complainant Iqbal Singh has filed the present petition under section 481 Cr.P.C., being aggrieved against the order judgment dated September 2, 1989 of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar by which he has confirmed the order dated March 29. 1984 of Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Padampur, who had dismissed the complaint filed by the parties. 2. The dispute relates to the year 1980. The basis of the dispute is a will, which according to the complainant-petitioner is a forged one. The trial Magistrate after bolding an enquiry under section 200/202 Cr.P.C. dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P C. after giving reasons. It is note worthy the prior to it. the police had also submitted a final report and on the protest petition of the petitioner, the enquiry was held under section 200/202 Cr.P.C. 3. The order of the learned Magistrate has been confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in exercise of revisional powers under section 397 Cr.P.C. 4. Mr. Sandhu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the will is in the possession of the accused which has not been produced by them. According to him the existence of the will is established from the order of the Revenue Board which has been subsequently passed. The learned counsel further submits that at the stage of taking cognizance the Courts should not have appreciated the evidence minutely. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the non-petitioners, argued that the petitioner has only one right of revision which has been exercised by him. He further submits that the second revision is barred, as such, this petition under section 482 Cr P C. is not maintainable. The learned counsel further submits that the incident is of the year 1980 and 11 years have passed since then, as such, any direction by this Court to proceed with the case after taking cognizance shall cause mis-carriage of justice. The learned counsel further urged that the petitioner can seek his remedy to protect his right by approaching to a competent Civil Court. 6. I have given my careful consideration to the above submissions. From the orders of the Courts below, it is clear that they have considered the entire material placed on the records and thereafter, refused to issue the process against the accused-persons. The argument of Mr. 6. I have given my careful consideration to the above submissions. From the orders of the Courts below, it is clear that they have considered the entire material placed on the records and thereafter, refused to issue the process against the accused-persons. The argument of Mr. Sandhu may be true that at the stage of taking cognizance, the appreciation of evidence should not have been made so minutely. However, keeping in view the limitations under section 482 Cr P.C , especially after the right of revision having been exercised by the petitioner, and the fact that the incident relates to the year 1980, I am not inclined to make any interference. The petitioner, if he feels to be aggrieved from the said will, may challenge the same in a competent court to safeguard his rights. 7. The petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily. *******