JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition has been filed for challenging the order taking cognizance against the petitioners affirmed by the Revisional Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this case, the agreement to sale between the parties was executed in the year 1985, thereafter, as per, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the registry was executed in the year 1985 itself. It is only after 14 years in the year 1999 that the complainant filed a F.I.R. challenged the execution of the Registry and alleged that though the signatures of the Registry were his but he had not gone to Sub-Registrar office for executing the registration of a sale-deed. The police investigated the matter thoroughly and gave a negative final report, on which, the complainant filed a protest petition and his statements were recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. On the basis of the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences tinder Sections 420 and 120-B I.P.C. The petitioners challenged the said order by way of a revision which too has been rejected. 3. Mr. J.R. Beniwal, learned Senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the signatures on the documents are not disputed. He has further submitted that the complainant kept silent for a period of 14 years and that the registry has not been called into question in any civil Court. These factual aspects have not been disputed by the counsel for the complainant. However, as per Mr. R.S. Choudhary, the counsel for the complainant, the endorsement on the registration is forged because the complainant never went to the Sub-Registrar Office. 4. Having considered the arguments advanced at the bar and after having perused the orders of the Courts below, this Court is of the opinion that the complaint in this case is bereft of any force. The disputed registry in question was executed in the year 1985. The complainant just kept silent for a period of 14 years and thereafter filed the F.I.R. which has resulted into a final report. The signatures on the registry are not disputed nor the registry has been challenged in any civil Court. 5. In these circumstances, no prima facie offence under Section 420 or 120- B I.P.C. are made out. 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The signatures on the registry are not disputed nor the registry has been challenged in any civil Court. 5. In these circumstances, no prima facie offence under Section 420 or 120- B I.P.C. are made out. 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order dated 16.9.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, in revision confirming the order of the learned ACJM Bhadra dated 16.9.2003 in Criminal Regular Case No. 458/2003 taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 or 120- B I.P.C. is quashed. 7. Stay application is also stands dismissed.Petition allowed. *******