TlBREWAL, J. —The above petitions, filed under section 482 Cr. P.C., may be disposed of together by a common order as they arise from the same case. (2). In short the facts arc : Mohammed Yasin (hereinafter to be referred as the complainant) made a report at Police Station Manak Chowk, Jaipur on August 22, 1981. On this report, crime No. 444/81 was registered under sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. The said report was against Sohan Lal (hereinafter to be referred as the accused) and his brother Prahlad (since deceased). In the said report, the complainant alleged that he was having a non-temporary stage carriage permit for the route Sikar-Juliasar Ki-Piou and the bus bearing registration No. RJI 1150 was purchased by him from the accused Sohan Lal. He further stated that the accused was working as his driver on the aforesaid bus and plied the same on the aforesaid route on his behalf. The accused and his brother forged an agreement to sale and a power of attorney in their favour, after forging the signatures of the complainant and on the basis of those documents, got the registration of the bus transferred in their name. The case of the complainant was that he did not execute any agreement to sale, as well as, any power of attorney in favour of the accused. (3). After registration of the case, the police investigated the matter and, thereafter, submitted a negative report under section 169 Cr.P.C. on March 24, 1982. In the course of investigation, the complainant had approached to the higher authorities and got the orders for the investigation by the C.I.D. (C.B.). It appears that before the investigation could be completed by the C.I.D. (C.B.) the local police submitted the negative report. On the negative report submitted by the local police, before any order could be passed by the concerned Magistrate, the C.I.D. (C.B.) also completed its investigation and it also submitted a negative report under Section 169 Cr. P.C. on Sept. 5, 1986. (4). The complainant had also filed a complaint on the same facts in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 13, Jaipur on April 7, 1982. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused Sohan Lal and his brother Prahlad under sections 379, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. vide his order dated Sept. P.C. on Sept. 5, 1986. (4). The complainant had also filed a complaint on the same facts in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 13, Jaipur on April 7, 1982. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused Sohan Lal and his brother Prahlad under sections 379, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. vide his order dated Sept. 26, 1983, after disagreeing with the negative report submitted by the local police, as well as, by the C.I.D. (C.B.). (5). Against the aforesaid order taking cognizance, the accused Sohan Lal and his brother filed a revision which was heard and disposed of by the Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Revision No. 82/83 (168/83). The said revision was allowed by the learned Judge holding that there was no ground to proceed against the accused persons. While accepting the revision, the learned Judge also observed that from the report of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, it was clear that the signatures of the complainant on the agreement to sale, as well as, the power of attorney were not forged as those signatures tallied with the specimen signature of the complainant. This order was passed by the learned Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur on December 7, 1983. Against this order, the complainant has filed Criminal Misc. Petition No. 542/89 before this Court on May 5, 1989 i.e. after five and half years of the said order. (6). It appears that the learned Magistrate then proceeded on the private complaint filed by the complainant. After recording the statement of the complainant and his three witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr. P.C. he issued process against the accused Sohan Lal and his brother Prahlad on Dec. 21, 1985 for the offence under sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. Against this order, the revision was dismissed by the Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur on June 14, 1988 holding that the revision is not maintainable as the order taking cognizance is interlocutory order. Against this order, the accused Sohan Lal has filed a Criminal Misc. Petition No. 585/1988 before this Court on July 16,1988. (7). I have heard Mr. R.N. Munshi, learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. R.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the accused. (8). The main contention of Mr. Munshi is that the order of the Magistrate dated Sept. Against this order, the accused Sohan Lal has filed a Criminal Misc. Petition No. 585/1988 before this Court on July 16,1988. (7). I have heard Mr. R.N. Munshi, learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. R.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the accused. (8). The main contention of Mr. Munshi is that the order of the Magistrate dated Sept. 26, 1983, which he has taken cognizance against the accused Sohan Lal and his brother was an interlocutory order and the revision preferred by the accused and his brother against the said order was not maintainable, as such, the order passed in Revision No. 82/83 by Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur on December 7, 1983 was also without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court in exercise of powers under section 482 Cr. P.C. even though the petition has been preferred by the complainant after live and half years. He further argued that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate was not required to give reasons for dis-agreeing with the conclusions arrived at by the police on its investigation or examine evidence meticulously. (9). On the other hand, Mr. Yadav learned counsel for the accused urged that the order taking cognizance on the complainant by the Magistrate was a final order and the Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge committed an error of law in rejecting the revision holding that the same was not maintainable on the ground of its being interlocutory order. He also argued that the petition filed by the complainant should be rejected on the simple ground that it has been filed after five and half years of the order of Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge. (10). In support of the petition filed by the accused, Mr. Yadav further argued that the Magistrate should have taken into consideration the material and evidence collected by the Investigating Agency. He then submitted that the incident is of earlier than 1981 and civil litigation is also going on between the parties with regard to the same dispute and that from the report of the Director, F.S.L., it was clearly established that both the documents contained the signature of the complainant himself and they were not forged. He then submitted that the incident is of earlier than 1981 and civil litigation is also going on between the parties with regard to the same dispute and that from the report of the Director, F.S.L., it was clearly established that both the documents contained the signature of the complainant himself and they were not forged. He also argued that had there been no such documents, the complainant would not have allowed the accused to ply the bus continuously and that too without taking any accounts from him. (11). I have given my careful consideration to the above contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The revision preferred by the complainant Mohammed Yasin can be dismissed on the simple ground that it has been filed after five and half years of the order passed by the Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, by which he had discharged the accused persons! The argument of Mr. Munshi that the order taking cognizance by the Magistrate, being interlocutory order, could not have been revised by the revisional court in exercise of powers under section 397 Cr. P.C. is also untenable on two grounds. Firstly, the complainant could have raised this argument before the revisional court and he cannot be allowed to raise this argument after five and half years. Secondly, legally also this argument is devoid of force. The basis of this argument of the learned counsel for the complainant is a judgment of this Court in Namichand vs. State (1). In this connection, it may be stated that Namichands case (supra) was with regard to framing of charge and not taking cognizance and further this judgement has been over ruled by a full bench decision of this Court. It cannot be disputed now, after authoritative judgement of the Honble Supreme Court in Maduti Maiyas case (2) and Amarnaths case (3) that an order taking cognizance is a final order. (12). On the same reasoning the revision dismissed by Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide order dated June 14, 1988 against the order dated November 21, 1985 of Judicial Magistrate No. 13, Jaipur City, Jaipur on the complaint case is erroneous in law as the order taking cognizance is a final order and the revision filed by the accused was maintainable. (13). Distt. & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide order dated June 14, 1988 against the order dated November 21, 1985 of Judicial Magistrate No. 13, Jaipur City, Jaipur on the complaint case is erroneous in law as the order taking cognizance is a final order and the revision filed by the accused was maintainable. (13). Now there are two courses opened before me while dealing with the petition No. 585/88 filed by Sohan Lal; either to send the case back to the court of Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge to decide the revision on merits or to consider the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance on merits. In my view the latter course shall be an appropriate one as a revision lies to this Court also against the order of Magistrate. (14). From the facts narrated above, it is borne out that:— (i) The incident is of the year 1978 or so; (ii) The local police investigated the matter and the C.I.D. (C.B.) also investigated the same on the report made by the complainant and both of them submitted negative report under section 160 Cr. P.C.; (iii) The cognizance taken on the police papers was set aside by the Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in.a revision filed by the accused Sohan Lal and his brother Prahlad. The learned Judge recorded a finding that there was no good ground to proceed against the accused persons as the alleged two documents are not forged as made out from the report of the Director, F.S.L; (iv) The Magistrate did not take into consideration the evidence collected during the investigation, specially the report of the Director, F.S.L.; and (v) A Civil litigation with regard same matter is going on between the parties. (15). This Court has taken the view that even a negative report is submitted by the police after making investigation the Magistrate, while taking cognizance on a private complaint, subsequently, has to consider the material and evidence collected during the investigation by the Police. Reference in this connection may be made to case referred in 1988 (2) RLR, 82 (4) and 1990 RCC 361 (5). (16). During the police investigation, the disputed signatures on the agreement to sale and power of attorney were got examined by the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory from the specimen signatures of the complainant. Reference in this connection may be made to case referred in 1988 (2) RLR, 82 (4) and 1990 RCC 361 (5). (16). During the police investigation, the disputed signatures on the agreement to sale and power of attorney were got examined by the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory from the specimen signatures of the complainant. The report of the Director, F.S.L. was that the disputed signatures are of the same person, who had made the specimen signatures. (17). Thus, after the aforesaid report, and taking into consideration the above mentioned facts, I am of the view that it would be the travesty of justice if the prosecution of the accused Sohan Lal is allowed to continue on the private complaint, specially when a judicial finding has been recorded by the court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge that there are no good grounds to proceed against the accused. (18). The net result of the above discussion is that the petition filed by Mohammed Yasin (S.B. Crim. Misc. Petition No. 542/89) has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed. (19). The petition filed by the accused Sohan Lal (S.B. Crim. Misc. Petition No. 585/88) is allowed and the order dated November 21, 1985 of Judicial Magistrate No. 13, Jaipur City, Jaipur in criminal case No. 185/83 (2935/85) taking cognizance against the petitioner Sohan Lal under sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. is set aside.