JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. The present misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 10.9.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in Criminal Revision No. 27/2003 whereby the order dated 28.8.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sri Vijaynagar in F.R. Case No. 23/1996 (81/1995) taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B I.P.C. has been upheld. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Chajju Ram filed complaint alleging inter alia that he was married to Karmi Devi and used to stay in Chak 23 CB. Thereafter, he left his wife and started living at Chak 22 PS and contracted marriage with another lady Ratni. It is further stated that his first wife Karmi, (sic) Ram and Deva Ram prepared forged death certificate showing the complainant to be dead whereas he was very much alive and on that basis, they got allotment of 21 bighas of land. This complaint was forwarded by the Judicial Magistrate to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. whereupon F.I.R. No. 193/1995 was registered and investigation commenced. At the conclusion of the investigation, the police submitted negative F.R. On which notice were issued to the complainant and after proceeding under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 16.1.1997 rejected the protest petition and accepted the F.R. The complainant challenged the said order in revision. The revisional Court remanded the matter to the trial Court who by order dated 28.3.2003 proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioner and other for the offences mentioned above. Being aggrieved by order dated 28.3.2003, the petitioner preferred revision which too has been dismissed. Accordingly, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this misc. petition.for quashing of the impugned orders. 4. Assailing the impugned order, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this case, the investigation of the case revealed that the complainant had gone missing for a period of more than 20 years, therefore, raising presumption of Section 108 of the Evidence Act, the mother of the petitioner submitted an application to the competent officer for allotment of land as being landless and a widow. Based on the said application, the competent authority allotted land to Smt. Karmi Devi. Based on the said application, the competent authority allotted land to Smt. Karmi Devi. It has been submitted that the provision of Section 108 of the Evidence Act clearly entitled Karmi Devi to make use of the presumption as the whereabouts of complainant Chhaju Ram were not know for nearly 20 years.That apart, it is submitted that whatever proceedings have been initiated, have been initiated by Karmi Devi and the petitioner has not participated in the allotment proceedings.Having considered the arguments advance and after taking into account the material collected by the police during the course of investigation, this Court is of the opinion that the allotment of land made to Karmi Devi as a widow was perfectly justified. The complainant had left Karmi Devi and started living at a different place and was not traceable for a period of almost 20 years. No evidence has been led on the record of the case to show that the factum of Chhaju Ram being alive was known to his wife or his children. The allotment was challenged by Chhaju Ram and the matter went upto Revenue Authority where the allotment order in favour of Karmi Devi was upheld and as such, the order impugned is patently illegal and amounts to an abuse of process of Court.That apart, as has been observed above, the petitioners has no part to play in the allotment of land to Karmi Devi. Therefore, he could not have been prosecuted for the act of Karmi Devi, even if it was illegal.In this view of the matter, the present misc. petition succeeds and the same is hereby allowed and the orders dated 28.3.2003 and 10.9.2007 are hereby quashed and all proceedings sought to be taken against the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned orders are also quashed. Further proceedings as regards the other accused shall continue.Stay petition also stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******