JUDGMENT The 5 accused in a case arising on a complaint of the first respondent are the revision petitioners. First respondent is the son of 5th petitioner (first accused). Applicants 1 and 2 are the brothers of the complainant and petitioners 3 and 4 are the sisters of the complainant. According to the complainant, his mother who owned an item of property, executed an unregistered will in his favour and the 5th petitioner destroyed it and forged another will which purports to bequeath the property only to him. At an earlier stage, there was an allegation that the 5th petitioner had obtained certain beneficial orders from various authorities on the strength of the forged will. However, in Cr. Rev. No. 142/91, this Court held that an offence u/s 193 I.P.C. requires particular procedure and requires a complaint by appropriate officer and the complainant herein again invoked section 193 I.P.C. This Court gave liberty to the complainant to file a fresh complaint alleging an offence u/s 420 of the I.P.C. He filed a fresh complaint before the Court alleging an offence u/s 420 of the I.P.C. and to produce evidence. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint. The complainant challenged the dismissal in the Sessions Court. He also produced in the Sessions Court a document purporting to be a portion of the original will said to have been executed by the mother and said to have been traced out by him an a search and wanted an opportunity to adduce further evidence with reference to documents so produced. The Sessions Court, without going into the merits, set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the case to the learned Magistrate for fresh disposal after giving an opportunity to the complainant to adduce further evidence. This order is now challenged. The complainant has no case that the learned Magistrate shut out the evidence and prevented the complainant from adducing sufficient evidence in respect of his allegations. The complainant has no case that he was prevented by sufficient reasons from adducing appropriate evidence before the learned Magistrate. In the circumstances, the Sessions Court was not justified in remanding the case. Complainant had two opportunities; one at the stage of earlier complaint and against the stage of later complaint. If he did not choose to adduce necessary evidence in support of his case, the accused could not be allowed to be harassed. In the circumstances, the Sessions Court was not justified in remanding the case. Complainant had two opportunities; one at the stage of earlier complaint and against the stage of later complaint. If he did not choose to adduce necessary evidence in support of his case, the accused could not be allowed to be harassed. I set aside the impugned order and direct the Sessions Court to take back the revision petition on file and dispose of the same on merits. This revision petition is allowed as indicated above.