Judgment P.K.Sarkar, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 4.6.93 passed by the Sessions Judge, Samastipur, in Cr. Revision No. 138/92. 2. The brief facts leading to this application is that O.P. No. 2 Gunanand Kuer (now dead) whose heirs have been substituted as O.P. No. 2(i) to (iii), filed a complaint petition in the Court of SDJM, Dalsingsarai at Samastipur which was sent for instituting a case in Vidyapatinagar Police Station and also for investigation. On the basis of the complaint petition a case bearing Vidyapatinagar P.S. Case No. 72/83 was instituted under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 471, IPC against the accused-petitioners and after investigation the Police found the case false and submitted Final Form with recommendations for instituting a case under Sections 182 and 211, IPC. A protest petition was filed by the complainant who was examined on solemn affirmation and then the SDJM sent it to Sri S.K. Chowbey, Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai under Section 192, Cr PC. During the course of enquiry, the complainant examined three witnesses and the said protest petition was dismissed on 26.2.1992 in C.R. No. 154/91. The complainant filed a revision application before the Sessions Judge bearing Cr. Revision No. 138/92 and the impugned order was passed in that revision case remanding the case back to the Court below for consideration in accordance with law. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the present application has been filed. 4. The case of the complainant in brief is that the accused petitioners in conspiracy with each other knowing fully well that Kamaldhari Kuer died issueless, set up the petitioner, the daughter of Kamaldhari Kuer and impersonated her as daughter of Kamaldhari Kuer and got executed 13 sale deed fraudulently on two different dates i.e. 10.10.1988 and 2.2.1989. Hence, the aforesaid complaint petition was filed under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 471, IPC. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the main point in dispute is that whether Smt. Mithilesh Singh is the daughter of Late Kamaldhari Kuer or not and whether Kamaldhari Kuer had only one issue or not. The aforesaid question is purely a question of fact which can be decided in a civil proceeding and no criminal proceeding can be based on the aforesaid assertions of the parties. The aforesaid question is purely a question of fact which can be decided in a civil proceeding and no criminal proceeding can be based on the aforesaid assertions of the parties. It is further submitted that the matter was enquired into by the Police who submitted Final Form against the petitioners. The protest petition was also dismissed and the learned Sessions Judge without giving any proper reason remanded the case back to the Court below for reconsideration. The learned Sessions Judge has remanded the case back to the Court below only on the ground that three witnesses were examined who supported the order of the Court below in detail. 6. The learned Counsel for the O.P. Nos. 2(i) to (iii) who appeared after the death of O.P. No. 2 on 23.12.1993, submits that the case has been settled outside the Court and there is no dispute on the facts in question. 7. In view of the facts that the case is of purely civil dispute and also considering that the matter is not being contested by the Opposite Parties before this Court, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 4.6.1993 passed by the Sessions Judge in Cr. Revision No. 138/92 is hereby quashed.