JUDGMENT Mandhata Singh, J.:- No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. The State is represented. Prosecution case in brief is that complainant’s land allegedly purchased by accused persons but only by impersonating him in executing the deed and there is further mention in the complaint petition that complainant sold his land to others. Enquiry witnesses examined by the Trial Court and after taking the material on record, cognizance was taken which was challenged in revision by filing revision. After hearing the parties, the revision was allowed. Cognizance order was set aside giving detailed reasoning. At the end of paragraph-2 of the complaint petition, it is given that since the complainant was suspected to be a minor by the husband of the purchaser, his father also joined his hand in execution of the sale deed as vendor. So, this line clearly goes to show that this petitioner, Sujeet Kumar had also sold his land and the sale deed was executed by the complainant and his father in favour of the accused persons. There was no occasion for accused persons to get another sale deed executed in their favour. Thus, I find no illegality committed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gaya while passing the order. Accordingly, the criminal revision application is dismissed.