JUDGMENT 1. - By way of instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners seek to quash the order dated 14.1.2003 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. Ratangarh taking cognizance against the petitioners for offence under Sections 467, 468 and 120-B IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent Rewant Ram filed a complaint in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh on 3.9.2003 stating inter alia that the petitioners herein, who are the Sarpanch, Up-Sarpanch, Gram Sewak, Ward Panchs and the Patta Holders entered in conspiracy and pursuant thereto obtained a forged Patta of the agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 563 measuring 10.5 bighas situated in village Sandwa, Tehsil-Sujangarh, Distt. Churu. It is further alleged that the land in question was in the ownership of Pahad Das. The land was treated as residential land and Patta was granted in favour of the petitioner No. 6 Gopal and petitioner No. 7 Jetha Ram @ Jetha Das. It is further alleged that the petitioners, without following the procedure laid down in Panchayat Rules, prepared a false and fraudulent Patta. 3. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of AW1 Rewant Ram, AW2 Mangi Lal. AW3 Motu Ram, AW4 Banshi Lal and AW5 Surendra Singh and on the basis of these statements the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 120-B of the IPC. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed. It appears from the record that the land in question bearing Khasra No. 563/973 was converted into Abadi land as back as on 21.2.1979. The conversion charges have also been deposited. The Panchayat granted the Patta after following the requisite procedure. The complainant was also member of the Gram Panchayat but due to political rivalry he has filed a false and fabricated complaint. The learned magistrate has registered the case against the petitioners even before any enquiry by the police. This Court in Narendra Pal Kotadia & Ors. v. State and Anr 2004(2) WLC (Raj.) 665 : Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 2004(1) Page 589 . following the decision of the Apex Court in P. Sirajuddin etc. v. The State of Madras etc AIR 1971 SC 520 . This Court in Narendra Pal Kotadia & Ors. v. State and Anr 2004(2) WLC (Raj.) 665 : Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 2004(1) Page 589 . following the decision of the Apex Court in P. Sirajuddin etc. v. The State of Madras etc AIR 1971 SC 520 . held that the Court should be extremely careful in a case where the complaint is filed by a private party making a complaint against a public servant with respect to his act done in discharge of his official duty. The caution has been given that the Court must ensure the discouragement of fraudulent, doubtful and impolitic prosecution at the instance of a vindictive or a jealous private complaint. 5. On overall consideration of the entire matter I find that the complainant is a rival of the petitioners and has abused the process of law by filing the private complaint against the petitioners. Thus, in my mind it is a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.PC. to prevent the abuse of judicial process at the hands of frustrated and vindictive litigant by quashing the prosecution. 6. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh dated 14.1.2003 taking cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 467. 468 and 120B of the IPC is quashed and set aside.Appeal Dismissed. *******