O. P. JAIN, J. A cause under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act was registered against the applicant and summoning order dated 4-8-90 was passed against him. The applicant filed an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. and obtained a stay order from this Court on the ground that on 24-1-90, F. R. was filed by the prosecution and was accepted by the Special Judge. Therefore, the order dated 4-8-90 amounts to a review of the earlier order dated 24-1-90. A photo copy of order dated 24-1-90 is annexure I. 2. Ram Mohan Garg, respondent No. 3 filed a counter affidavit in which it was alleged that annexure 1 dated 24-1-90 is a forged order and no such order was passed by the Special Judge (A, C. Act) on that date. 3. For the reasons given in order dated 14-9-94 notice was issued to the applicant Dev Prakash Agarwal to show cause as to why he should not be prosecuted under Section 471, I. P. C. 4. A reply has been filed by Dev Prakash Agarwal on 14-11-94. Annexure III to the reply shows that on 21-10-89 the permission of the District Magistrate was sought by the prosecuting agency for filing the F. R. (Annexure IV) to the reply dated 14-11-94 show that on 1-1-90 A. D. M. sought the opinion of D. G. C. (Criminal) it appears from Annexure Y that D. G. C. (criminal) recommended on 4-1-90 that the case may be withdrawn. Annexure VI is the office noting which shows that A. D. M. recommended to the District Magistrate accepted this recommendation of the A. D, M. 5. All these documents show that, that there is greater probability of F. R. being submitted in January, 1990 and the Special judge having passed the order on 24-1-90, 6. It may also be mentioned that during the course of argument the learned counsel for the applicant (Dev Prakash Agarwal) filed the certified copy of the order dated 24-1-90 of which photo copy is annexure I. He also produced a certified copy of the extract from the copying register maintained by the court concerned. Both these documents were kept in a sealed cover and were handed over to the Bench Secretary. A perusal of the certified copies does not show anything suspicious. 7. Both these documents were kept in a sealed cover and were handed over to the Bench Secretary. A perusal of the certified copies does not show anything suspicious. 7. Now, even if it assumes for the sake of argument that Annexure I is a forged order, it cannot be proved to be forged because it is an admitted fact that the original case file is missing. The learned counsel for both the parties informed the court that the case file has disappeared and an adminis trative enquiry was held by the District Judge and the Vigilance officer of this Court. In view of these facts it is expedient to launch a prosecution against the applicant. The court should not file a complaint which is bound to fail. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 was unable to show any material which may prove that Annexure I is a copy of forged document. 8. In view of the above discussion the notice issued to applicant, Dev Prakash Agarwal is vacated. The certified copies kept in the sealed envelop may be returned to the applicant after ascertaining from the vigilance Officer of this court that they are not required in connection with the enquiry which is being made by him. Decided accordingly. .