JUDGMENT 1. - This revision has been filed by the accused Satyapal against an order dated 5.8.1998 passed by the learned Additional-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh. 2. The complainant Devilal, since deceased, on 20.11.1991 lodged an F.I.R. at Police Station, Suratgarh. 3. According to the F.I.R. on 61991 the accused persons went to Smt. Tulchhi in Village Shopura. Smt. Tulchhi was old and, ailing. The accused persons Raibahadur, Satyapal, Vinod Kumar, Kamal Chand and Vishvanath conspired and thumb marks of Tulchhi were obtained on a Will, while Tulchhi was unconscious. A case Under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 was registered at Police Station, Suratgarh. During investigation it came out that the parties were at logger-heads in respect of certain agricultural lands left behind by Smt, Tulchhi, who died on 8.11.1991. Prior to the lodging of the said F.I.R. litigation in respect of the disputed property was pending in the revenue courts where the Will in dispute was produced by the accused persons. According to the investigation thereafter it was decided to lodge the F.I.R. and there was no truth in the story to the effect that it was got thumb marked from Smt. Tulchhi while she was unconscious. Consequently an F.I.R. was filed. 4. The complainant protested in the court and ultimately cognizance was ordered against Satyapal and Raibahadur. No cognizance was taken against the three other accused persons viz. Vinod Kumar, Kamal Chand and Vishvanath. 5. A revision was filed by Raibahadur and Satyapal against the order of cognizance dated 8.2.1993 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 3.4.1995 with the observation that the accused persons shall be at liberty to raise all the objections at the time of hearing of arguments for framing of charge. The order for framing the charge was passed by the learned trial Court on 5.8.1998 against which this revision has been filed by the accused Satyapal. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. None as appeared for the respondents. 7. After hearing the arguments and perusal of the record of the lower court I find that it is difficult to sustain the impugned order. 8. As pointed out earlier it is not in dispute that the parties are prosecuting the litigation in the revenue courts in respect of the agricultural property which is subject matter of. the impugned Will. 7. After hearing the arguments and perusal of the record of the lower court I find that it is difficult to sustain the impugned order. 8. As pointed out earlier it is not in dispute that the parties are prosecuting the litigation in the revenue courts in respect of the agricultural property which is subject matter of. the impugned Will. Needless to say that it will be for the revenue or the civil courts to arrive at the conclusion as to whether the Will is a lawfully executed document or is a forgery. That finding can be given by the courts before whom the dispute is pending. 9. In these circumstances neither a criminal court can decide the question nor any finding arrived at by the criminal court is of any consequence. 10. Needless to say that if the court concerned arrives at a conclusion that the Will in question is a forgery or concludes that the thumb impression of the person concerned was obtained while she was unconscious, the court can pass orders for the prosecution of the persons who in the view of the court are guilty of the offence. 11. With these observations I find that the impugned order is not sustainable. 12. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 5.8.1998 is set-aside so far as it goes against the petitioner.Revision Petition allowed. *******