JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., the order dated 16.6.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Hanumangarh, Headquarters Nohar (for short, 'the revisional court' hereinafter) has been challenged by the accused petitioners, whereby the revisional court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 29.5.2004 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar (for short, 'the trial court' hereinafter). 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the orders passed by both the courts below. 3. It appears that respondent No. 2 Rami Devi lodged a crime report alleging therein that the petitioners have forged the will of her father, whereas her father executed the will in her favour on 20.2.1984, which was registered at Sub-Registrar Office, Nohar and thereafter her father never executed any will and after the death of her father, a will has been produced in the registry office, which is forged one. The trial court took the cognizance by order dated 29.5.2004 for the offences under sections 465, 467, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. and issued the process against the petitioners. That order came to be challenged by the petitioners before the revisional court by way of filing a revision petition under section 397 Cr.PC. and the revisional court by well reasoned and elaborate order considering the entire material available on the record of the trial court did not find any error or illegality in the order taking cognizance and dismissed the revision petition. Hence, this petition. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that though the will has been registered in favour of respondent No. 2 on 20.2.1984 at Sub-Registrar Office, Nohar and signatures thereon have been examined by FSL through Handwriting Expert and it was found to be that of father of respondent No. 2 but so far as documents, which alleged to have been said to have been forged, no conclusion arrived at by both the courts below and therefore, the proceeding is bad. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a decision of Gauhati High Court in Pradeep Dutta Bhowmik & Ors. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a decision of Gauhati High Court in Pradeep Dutta Bhowmik & Ors. v. State of Tripura & Anr., 2004 Cri.L.J. 1697 , wherein it has been held that the accused charged with forging will and stealing valuable articles; Civil Court has already seized with the matter concerning determination of genuineness of disputed will and; the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed and on this premise, the proceedings were quashed. 5. In M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh & Anr., (2001) 8 SCC 645 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : "The High Court appears to have been impressed by the fact that as the nature of the dispute was primarily of a civil nature, the appellant was not justified in resorting to the criminal proceedings. Accepting such a general proposition would be against the provisions of law inasmuch as in all cases of cheating and fraud, in the whole transaction, there is generally some element of civil nature. The proceedings could not be quashed only because the respondents had filed a civil suit. If mere pendency of a suit is made a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings, the unscrupulous litigants, apprehending criminal action against them, would be encouraged to frustrate the course of justice and law by filing suits with respect to the documents intended to be used against them after the initiation of criminal proceedings or in anticipation of such proceedings. Such a course cannot be the mandate of law." 6. In Lalmuni Devi (Smt.) v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2001) 2 SCC 17 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : "There could be no dispute to the proposition that if the complaint does not make out an offence it can be quashed. However, it is also settled law that facts may give rise to a civil 1 claim and also amount to an offence. Merely because a civil claim is maintainable does not mean that the criminal complaint cannot be maintained." 7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decisions, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of no help to the extent that the civil and criminal liability both can be examined by the civil and criminal court independent of each other. 8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decisions, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of no help to the extent that the civil and criminal liability both can be examined by the civil and criminal court independent of each other. 8. The petitioner has already availed one remedy by filing a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge as envisaged under Section 397 Cr.PC. Under the garb of petition under Section 482 Cr.PC., the petitioner seeks to avail a remedy of second revision. The second revision petition is barred by Section 397(3) Cr.PC. The trial court recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 200 and 201. In my view, the trial court was justified in taking cognizance as there exists a ground to proceed against the petitioners so as the order of the revisional court affirming the order of the trial court. In this view of the matter, when the petitioners already availed one remedy of revision and under the garb of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks to avail a remedy of second revision. The second revision petition is barred by Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, it cannot be said that the order impugned would result in serious miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of any court warranting interference in inherent jurisdiction.The petition is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******