JUDGMENT 1. - By way of instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.12.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh, refusing to interfere with the order dated 4.10.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharsana, taking cognizance against the petitioner and others for offence under Sections 420, 468, 471 & 120-B I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Jodha Ram brother of the petitioner herein namely Nanu Ram submitted a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharsana on 3.5.1995 stating inter alia that in the year 1974 in check 3 AM 25 bighas of land was allotted in the name of his deceased father Sadhu Ram. He died in the year 1979, leaving behind the complainant himself and others namely Nanu Ram (petitioner), Rukhadi, Chunki and Dhamli as legal representatives. It is alleged that the petitioner herein fraudulently in conspiracy with two other accused persons namely Bikar Singh and Bhoop Ram filed a false and fabricated application before the Tehsildar, Gharsana on 23rd June, 1980 showing himself the sole representative of the deceased Sadhu Ram. He got the entire land mutated in his name. It was also stated that with regard to the same allegation, he had filed a complaint earlier in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh camp Raisinghngar on 16.6.1993 which was sent for investigation under the provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The S.H.O., Police Station Gharsana after investigation forwarded a final report which was accepted by the learned Magistrate by order dated 4.3.1995. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of PW-1 Jodha Ram, PW-2 Sewa Ram and PW-3 Balwant Singh. The learned Magistrate by order dated 2.5.1996 took cognizance against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. The charges have also been framed by order dated 4.10.2000. The petitioner challenged the said order by way of revision which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 16.12.2002. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders and the relevant record, I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed for more than one reasons. Firstly, once the final report as forwarded by the Police was accepted, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance on second complaint constituted of the same allegation. Firstly, once the final report as forwarded by the Police was accepted, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance on second complaint constituted of the same allegation. Secondly, the mutation is a fiscal proceeding and does not vest right in any party. 4. It further appears that the sons of Jodha Ram filed a civil suit in the court of Assistant Collector, Anoopgarh which involves the issue regarding the subject mutation proceedings. The suit was decreed by order dated 28.2.1994. The Revenue Appellate Authority by order dated 30.12.1995 set aside the order of the Assistant Collector, Anoopgarh and remanded the matter for fresh hearing. The Board of Revenue by order dated 28.10.1999 set aside the order of remand and decreed the suit. It is stated that the said order of the Board of Revenue has been challenged by way of writ petition pending before this Court. Thus, it Is entirely a dispute of civil nature. There is nothing on record to show that any document has been forged by the petitioner herein. 5. Thus, to my mind, the allegation does not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence under Sections 420, 468. 471 and 120-B I.P.C. The continuance of proceedings against the petitioner amount to abuse of process of the court. Thus, with a view to prevent the abuse of process of the court, it is expedient to quash the subject proceedings against the petitioner. 6. Consequently, the misc. petition is allowed. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Anoopgarh dated 16.12.2002 is quashed and set aside. The order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharsana dated 4.10.2002 taking cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Sections 420, 468, 471 & 120-8 I.P.C. is also set aside.Petition Allowed. *******